DCPP VS. N.M.S. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF C.P v. JR. (FG-15-0046-14, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0284-16T3

Child born 2007 with fetal alcohol syndrome and special needs after Mother’s prenatal alcohol abuse; child removed at birth and placed with Division, returned in 2009 after services.
Mother repeatedly relapsed into alcohol use and discontinued mental-health treatment; child removed again in 2011 and a third time in 2013 after neglect and unsafe conditions.
Multiple service interventions (inpatient/outpatient substance abuse treatment, AA, mental-health programs) were provided by the Division; Mother showed intermittent improvement but relapsed several times through 2015.
Bonding evaluations (2014–2016) showed the parent–child bond weakened; the nine-year-old favored visits but did not want to live with Mother; expert Dr. Brandwein testified another reunification and likely fourth removal would be psychologically devastating, whereas termination could be addressed by counseling.
Division pursued termination to free the child for select-home adoption; adoption specialist and caseworkers testified termination would increase adoptability and they were confident a permanent adoptive placement could be found.
Trial court found each statutory prong satisfied, concluded termination would do more good than harm, and entered judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights; Mother appealed only the fourth-prong (harm vs. good) determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination will do more harm than good under prong four of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)	Division: termination will increase adoptability and permanency; delay/additional reunification would harm child; termination will not cause enduring harm	Mother: termination may cause greater harm absent a concrete permanency plan; expert/adoption testimony might change after later violent incidents; remand needed like in E.P.	Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports that termination will not do more harm than good; differences from E.P. justified affirmance and no remand

In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (parental rights constitutionally protected but subject to State’s parens patriae duty)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012) (Division must prove termination is in child’s best interests by clear and convincing evidence)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986) (courts must weigh permanency and potential compensable benefits when considering termination)
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008) (remand where the fourth-prong proof was insufficient because parental relationship still provided vital emotional sustenance and permanency was unlikely)
In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440 (2002) (appellate review limited; defer to family court factfinding)