DCPP VS. S.S.M. AND M.H.W., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.Z.M. (FG-07-0131-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-2325-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Child ("Mark") entered Division custody as an infant in July 2012; father (M.H.W.) was identified in April 2013 and sporadically engaged thereafter.
- Father admitted to chronic marijuana use and tested positive on multiple drug screens (also disputed PCP results); he failed to complete multiple substance‑abuse programs and missed screenings/appointments.
- Mark was placed briefly with father in July 2017 but removed after father tested positive for drugs and violated court orders; subsequent placements included the father’s wife (ruled out) and a resource parent, Ms. B., who became prospective adoptive parent.
- Father missed visits, disappeared for periods, failed to attend bonding evaluations, and did not secure stable, child‑appropriate housing despite referrals and having employment income.
- Competing bonding experts: Dr. Singer (Division) found Ms. B. to be Mark’s psychological parent and concluded termination/adoption would better serve Mark; Dr. Brown (defense) did not evaluate father but asserted a biological‑parent bond—court credited Dr. Singer.
- Trial court terminated father’s parental rights under N.J.S.A. 30:4C‑15; Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to trial findings and concluding the Division proved the statutory Best Interests prongs by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Division proved the N.J.S.A. 30:4C‑15 best‑interests prongs by clear and convincing evidence | Division: Father’s chronic substance use, failure to complete services, inconsistent visits, lack of housing plan, and bonding evidence show father cannot parent now or in foreseeable future | Father: Court ignored changed cannabis law and poverty; services were insufficient; drug use alone shouldn’t justify termination | Held: Affirmed — record supports findings that all statutory prongs were met and termination was in child’s best interests |
| Whether evidence showed resource parent committed to adopt despite her not testifying at trial | Division: Ms. B.’s sworn pre‑hearing statement and bonding evidence established commitment to adopt | Father: No competent evidence because Ms. B. did not testify at trial | Held: Affirmed — Ms. B.’s prior sworn testimony and expert findings were admissible and sufficient to show commitment |
| Whether father’s marijuana use (post‑legalization) and poverty undermine termination | Father: Legalization and financial limits mean use/housing problems should not support termination | Division: Father’s longstanding, heavy use plus refusal to complete programs and failure to pursue housing referrals demonstrate parental unfitness regardless of statutory changes | Held: Affirmed — termination grounded on failure to remedy conditions and lack of permanency, not merely criminality |
| Weight of expert testimony on bonding and mitigation of harm | Division: Dr. Singer directly evaluated both dyads and concluded Ms. B. could mitigate harm; termination would serve child | Father: Dr. Brown asserted biological parent uniquely positioned to mitigate harm | Held: Afforded trial court deference — Dr. Singer’s direct evaluations credited; Dr. Brown’s opinion discounted because he never assessed father and conceded limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to family‑part judges on factual findings)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (appellate review limited; uphold findings supported by credible evidence)
- In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 1993) (standards for appellate deference to trial factfinding)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494 (2004) (children cannot wait indefinitely for parental change)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. C.S., 367 N.J. Super. 76 (App. Div. 2004) (emphasis on child permanency and time limits on reunification efforts)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 375 N.J. Super. 235 (App. Div. 2005) (focus is whether parent can become fit in time to meet child's needs)