DCPP VS. R.A.B. AND S.C.P. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.A.C.B. AND R.A.B., JR. (FG-07-208-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-3838-15T4,A-4496-15T4
N.J. Super. App. Div. UJun 2, 2017Background
- Father (Roger) pled guilty in 2004 to second-degree sexual assault for repeatedly molesting a minor cousin; received 3 years' imprisonment and lifetime community supervision barring unsupervised contact or residence with minors. Virginia later terminated his parental rights to another child.
- Mother (Sally) was adjudicated incapacitated/guardian-appointed in 2011 after evaluations finding IQ and adaptive functioning at approximately a 9–10 year-old level; two psychological evaluations concluded she lacked capacity to parent and lacked insight into those limitations.
- Division took custody of newborn Lauren (2014) and later Raymond (2015), placed both with resource homes committed to adoption, and sought termination of Roger’s and Sally’s parental rights with a permanency plan of adoption.
- Psychologist Dr. Alison Strasser Winston evaluated both parents and the children: she found both parents incapable of providing a safe, stable home in the foreseeable future, weak parent–child attachment, and recommended termination; resource parent showed secure attachment with Lauren.
- At trial (April 2016) the Division presented Dr. Winston and two employees; defendants presented no experts or documentary evidence and did not testify. The Family Part terminated both parents’ rights; Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Division proved the four prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1 by clear and convincing evidence | Division: parents’ incapacity, history, and current evaluations endanger children; delay would harm; services/reasonable efforts addressed; termination not more harmful | Roger/Sally: Division failed to satisfy prongs; Sally argued failure to accommodate disability; Roger argued no active harm and sought hearing under N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.1(a) | Court: Division met all four prongs; credible expert evidence supported termination and need for permanency; affirmed |
| Whether Roger received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue a N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.1(a) hearing or evaluation evidence | Division: counsel arranged evaluations; Roger failed to attend or produce supporting expert so no prejudice | Roger: counsel was distracted/ignorant of statute, so he never secured the hearing | Court: counsel performance not constitutionally deficient; Roger failed to pursue or present evaluations; no prejudice shown; claim denied |
| Admissibility and sufficiency of Dr. Winston’s expert opinions (including on risk from Roger) | Division: Dr. Winston was qualified and grounded her opinions in testing, interviews, records, and observations | Roger: Dr. Winston not specialized in sexual offenders; her opinion on risk/denial of guilt was improper | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; Dr. Winston qualified under N.J.R.E. 702/703 and gave factual bases beyond net opinion rule |
| Whether Virginia termination bars relief from Division’s obligation to make reasonable efforts | Division: N.J.S.A. 30:4C-11.3(c) permits relieving reasonable-efforts obligation when parental rights to another child were involuntarily terminated by a court of competent jurisdiction | Roger: Virginia termination under different law shouldn’t automatically relieve NJ Division of reunification duties | Held: statute applies regardless of forum; Division properly relieved of reasonable-efforts requirement as to Roger |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (codifies child-best-interests standard for termination)
- In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999) (parental withdrawal of care alone can constitute harm endangering child)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (standard of appellate review for guardianship/termination findings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.R., 192 N.J. 301 (2007) (applying ineffective-assistance standards in guardianship context)
- Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (2015) (standard for admission and evaluation of expert testimony)