DCPP VS. R.J. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF H.H.H.(FG-16-0088-16, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3202-16T4

Background

Child (Harold) born to mother Tiffany who used multiple substances during pregnancy; Division obtained custody after newborn withdrawal and multiple later removals due to mother's relapse and incarceration.
Richard (defendant) was identified belatedly as the father; paternity confirmed by test on December 1, 2015 after multiple missed appointments and periods of incarceration.
Division attempted relative placements (paternal grandmother, other relatives) but relatives were unsuitable or unavailable; child remained in long‑term resource care with K.M. and an identified surrender by mother occurred.
Division offered Richard services (visitation, bus passes, substance‑abuse assessments/treatment, psychological evaluation); Richard largely failed to attend evaluations, drug screens, or consistently visit and continued to test positive for opiates, cocaine, benzodiazepines.
Psychological and bonding evaluations (Dr. Kanen) found Richard of borderline intelligence, longstanding personality/coping deficits, no parent–child bond, and that returning Harold to Richard would pose a risk; trial court terminated Richard’s parental rights under the four‑prong best‑interests statutory test.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying adjournment for private counsel	Division: delay would prejudice child’s right to permanency; counsel present; no plausible reason for further delay	Richard: requested time to retain private counsel; counsel allegedly ineffective; judge failed to conduct fact‑sensitive inquiry under Kates	Denial not an abuse of discretion—no specific showing of unpreparedness or prejudice and child’s permanency interests outweighed delay
Admissibility/weight of Dr. Kanen’s psychological tests/opinion	Division: opinion founded on clinical interview, WAIS‑IV/V and MCMI‑III, bonding eval and records—reliable bases	Richard: opinion was an impermissible “net opinion” and invalid because testing occurred while under influence and contradicted by employment history	Court found Dr. Kanen’s methods and bases admissible and not speculative; opinions supported by testing and record evidence
Whether prong one (harm to child) established	Division: Richard’s long absence, failure to parent, unstable housing and substance abuse endangered child’s safety, health, development	Richard: challenges the evidence of harm and expert opinion	Court held prong one satisfied—harm demonstrated by prolonged parental withdrawal, exposure to mother’s substance abuse, instability, and risk if returned to Richard
Whether Division made reasonable efforts / prong three satisfied	Division: engaged in ongoing efforts to locate father, offered services and relative assessments; delays were caused by Richard’s unavailability and noncompliance	Richard: Division failed to investigate brother/relatives and develop services plan	Court held Division met its obligation—reasonable, coordinated efforts were made; Richard’s own conduct caused delays and he failed to utilize offered services

Key Cases Cited

In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (N.J. 1999) (establishes four‑prong best‑interests standard for termination of parental rights)
In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (N.J. 1999) (parental withdrawal and failure to perform parenting functions can constitute harm under prong one)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (N.J. 2007) (standard of appellate review in termination matters)
State v. Kates, 426 N.J. Super. 32 (App. Div. 2012) (factors for evaluating continuance requests to retain new counsel)
Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395 (N.J. 2014) (limits on speculative or "net" expert opinions)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2013) (clarifies nature of harm required under prong one)