DCPP VS. N.C. AND R.S. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Q.C. AND M.S. (FG-16-0068-15, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-0934-16T1A-0935-16T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Dec 5, 2017Background:
- Parents N.C. (Nancy) and R.S. (Roger) are the parents of Q.C. (b. 2008) and M.S. (b. 2010); DCPP intervened after a prior infant death in the household and subsequent safety concerns.
- June 2013: Nancy slept with an infant after using marijuana; the infant was later found dead. Children were placed in DCPP custody and moved through several relative placements (maternal grandmother, great-aunt Katie) before placement with resource parents (the Cannons) who sought to adopt.
- Katie was later ruled out as a permanent placement after allegations of abuse and criminal charges; the Cannons became the stable preadoptive placement and experts found the children securely attached to them.
- DCPP provided services to both parents (parenting, substance abuse treatment, therapy, sex-offender specific referrals); Nancy participated intermittently and relapsed after initial treatment; Roger largely did not engage and was incarcerated for sexual assault and is a registered sex offender.
- After a 12-day guardianship trial Judge Yablonsky found by clear and convincing evidence that all four statutory prongs for termination under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) were met and terminated both parents’ rights; this appeal challenges aspects of those findings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCPP proved the four-prong best-interests test under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) supporting termination | DCPP: parents failed to remediate causes of removal; their continuance would endanger children and prevent permanency | Nancy/Roger: argued services were provided/insufficient; Roger contended services were not appropriate to his cognitive level | Court: Affirmed — judge’s factual findings supported; all four prongs proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Adequacy and reasonableness of services offered to parents | DCPP: provided appropriate services and explored relative placements | Roger: contended he was not offered services tailored to his cognitive abilities; Nancy challenged removal from Katie | Court: Services were reasonable; programs could accommodate clients’ levels; parents failed to engage or remediate |
| Whether the court erred by not holding a separate best-interest hearing earlier when Katie was ruled out as placement | DCPP: rule-out is part of broader best-interest analysis at guardianship trial | Nancy: argued prejudiced when children removed from Katie to Cannons without earlier best-interest hearing | Court: No error — rule-out is one element of the statutory best-interests test and could be addressed in the guardianship trial |
| Whether termination was impermissibly based on Roger’s incarceration | DCPP: termination based on broader findings of abandonment, non-engagement, risk to children | Roger: argued incarceration was sole or primary basis, citing that incarceration alone is insufficient for termination | Court: No — decision rested on multiple findings beyond incarceration (non-engagement, history, expert testimony) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (explaining statutory best-interests standard for termination)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to Family Part judge on factual findings)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (appellate review limits and standards for child-protection findings)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (2014) (incarceration alone insufficient to terminate parental rights)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.S., 433 N.J. Super. 69 (App. Div. 2013) (Division’s rule-out authority is subject to Family Part’s best-interest assessment)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.M., 430 N.J. Super. 428 (App. Div. 2013) (consideration of relative’s legal jeopardy and permanency prospects in placement analysis)