DCPP VS. S.L.  IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.L.(FG-13-82-14, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-3650-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 12, 2017Background
- Infant A.L. (Amy) born July 2012 tested positive for marijuana; mother Janet had no prenatal care; Division substantiated neglect; mother later voluntarily surrendered parental rights.
- Father S.L. had an extensive criminal history, prior involvement with Division after deaths of two other young children, and was incarcerated at trial (sentence with parole ineligibility through 2019).
- Amy was placed in a resource (foster) home upon NICU discharge in Oct. 2012 and remained there; resource parents seek adoption and Amy was described as thriving and securely attached.
- Division located S.L. after his incarceration; visitation was minimal (about five visits, many non-contact) with logistical barriers from prison placements and segregation.
- Psychological experts evaluated S.L. and the child; Division expert (Dr. Lee) found maladaptive personality traits, risk of recidivism, and no expected parent–child bond; Law Guardian’s expert and Division bonding expert confirmed strong attachment to resource family.
- Family Part terminated S.L.’s parental rights finding each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) met; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Division) | Defendant's Argument (S.L.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether S.L.'s parental relationship endangers the child's safety, health, or development | Incarceration plus S.L.'s criminal history, lack of prior parenting, minimal contact, and expert opinion show ongoing/enduring risk and inability to parent | Incarceration alone cannot justify termination; Division relied improperly on incarceration as sole basis | Court held there was particularized evidence (prior parenting, lack of bond, expert testimony) beyond mere incarceration to satisfy prong one and affirmed |
| 2. Whether S.L. is unwilling/unable to eliminate harm or provide a safe, stable home | Expert opinion showed long-standing maladaptive traits, risk of recidivism, and inability to parent in foreseeable future; child needs permanence | Argues expert reliance was improper; proposes rehabilitative plan and alternate placements (e.g., Nancy) | Court credited experts showing low likelihood of adequate parenting soon; prong two met |
| 3. Whether Division made reasonable reunification efforts and considered alternatives | Division investigated relatives (Nancy), facilitated visitation, and evaluated options; efforts were reasonable given S.L.’s custody status and lack of cooperation | Division failed to pursue or support proposed placement (Nancy/half-siblings) and impeded kin placement | Court found Division made reasonable efforts; Nancy was not a blood relative and siblings did not step forward; prong three met |
| 4. Whether termination would do more harm than good (bond analysis) | Child is securely attached to resource parents; severing that bond would cause greater, enduring harm than terminating ties with S.L., who has little/no bond with child | Argued child’s race/ethnicity counselled for placement with African-American relatives or siblings; expert offered a plan that could avoid harm to child | Court found strong bond with resource family and no meaningful bond with S.L.; terminating parental rights would not do more harm than good; prong four met |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (N.J. 1999) (articulates statutory best-interests prongs and bond balancing test)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (N.J. 2012) (best-interests focus and prong analysis guidance)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (N.J. 2008) (standard of appellate review; deference to Family Part factfinding)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (N.J. 2014) (incarceration requires particularized evidence relating to each prong)
- In re Adoption of Children by L.A.S., 134 N.J. 127 (N.J. 1993) (factors for assessing effect of parent incarceration)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (N.J. 2007) (prongs not discrete; composite best-interests analysis)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.S., 417 N.J. Super. 228 (App. Div. 2010) (lack of prior parent–child relationship and inability to parent supports finding of abandonment/unfitness)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.H., 389 N.J. Super. 576 (App. Div. 2007) (services and reunification limitations where parent is in custody)