DCPP VS. S.C. AND A.A.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.A., R.A.,R.C., P.C. AND D.C.(FG-07-0255-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-4767-15T3/A-4768-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Parents S.C. (Steven) and A.A. (Anna) are the biological parents of five minor children; the Division removed the children and sought termination of parental rights after a four‑day trial.
- The Family Part judge found by clear and convincing evidence that all four statutory prongs for termination (N.J.S.A. 30:4C‑15.1(a)) were satisfied and terminated both parents’ rights to all five children.
- Evidence showed the children—several with severe developmental disabilities—were insufficiently supervised, often arrived at school dirty or with injuries, and the home environment was chaotic.
- Psychological evaluations found Anna cognitively limited and unlikely to benefit from services; Steven was characterized as rigid, emotionally abusive, and unwilling to assume caregiving responsibilities.
- The Division provided multiple services (parenting classes, counseling referrals, supervised/therapeutic visitation); the court concluded services were reasonable but unsuccessful because parents did not or could not benefit.
- Post‑termination later developments: one foster family declined to adopt a child (Stanley) and another resource home indicated willingness to adopt Paul and another child; the Court affirmed but left open Rule 4:50 relief based on changed circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Division) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prong 1 — Danger to child’s safety, health, development | Parents’ relationship and parenting created imminent risk to children’s safety and development | Steven largely did not contest; Anna argued complaint lacked specific harms | Held for Division: ample evidence (home conditions, neglect, psychological reports) showed danger |
| Prong 2 — Parent unable/unwilling to eliminate harm | Parents failed to benefit from services, showed ongoing inability/unwillingness to meet special needs | Parents argued improvements after removal and services provided show risk could be remediated | Held for Division: parents, especially Anna, unlikely to remediate; Steven remained unwilling to assume caregiving; prong satisfied |
| Prong 3 — Reasonable efforts by Division to reunify | Division offered numerous services and made more‑than‑reasonable efforts under circumstances | Parents argued services were generic, not tailored to autism/developmental disabilities or Anna’s cognitive limits (ADA claim), and therapeutic visitation was offered too late | Held for Division: efforts were reasonable; Division not required to provide specialized program or guarantee success; therapeutic visitation would not have remediated core deficits |
| Prong 4 — Termination would not do more harm than good (permanency) | Termination serves children’s need for permanency and stability; foster placements provided nurturing homes | Parents argued strong parent‑child bonds, lack of identified adoptive home (esp. Paul), and harm from sibling separation | Held for Division: termination favored to secure permanency and children’s ability to thrive; court balanced bonds and found permanency outweighed disruption; affirmed, but court noted changed post‑trial facts could be addressed under Rule 4:50 |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are constitutionally protected and termination requires heightened proof)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are fundamental civil rights)
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (N.J. 1999) (child’s need for permanency central in guardianship/adoption cases)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (N.J. 1986) (second prong focuses on foreseeability parents can cease inflicting harm)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (N.J. 2008) (fourth prong as fail‑safe balancing parent bond vs. permanency)
- In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1992) (expert inquiry required to weigh competing relationships under fourth prong)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (N.J. 2007) (fourth prong protects against termination when it would do more harm)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382 (N.J. 2009) (State’s duty to protect children can outweigh parental interest)
- In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (N.J. 1999) (reasonableness of Division’s efforts measured against circumstances, not success)