DCPP VS. T.B. AND C.B., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.B. AND S.B. (FG-13-0065-18, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED)
A-0245-20/A-0246-20
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 1, 2021Background
- At birth (2016, 2017) hospital referrals were made after mother Carla tested positive for opiates/benzodiazepines and both newborns had positive drug screens; children were placed with maternal grandparents Denise and Alan.
- The Division filed for guardianship/termination of parental rights; litigation included multiple guardianship trial dates (2019–2020) with repeated parental absences and pandemic interruptions.
- Both parents had sporadic or non‑compliant engagement with substance‑abuse evaluations and treatment, positive drug tests, missed visits, and periods of incarceration; a grandparent recorded an observation suggesting ongoing drug use by Carla.
- Psychologist Dr. David Brandwein evaluated the parents and children, diagnosing substance‑related disorders and concluding parents were unlikely to remediate problems; he found strong bonds between the children and the grandparents.
- Grandparents consistently rejected kinship legal guardianship and expressed an unequivocal intent to adopt; the Family Part judge admitted some Division records subject to objections, made ongoing hearsay rulings, and rendered an oral decision terminating parental rights.
- Appellate Division affirmed, finding the Division met the statutory four‑prong best‑interests/Clear‑and‑convincing standard and that any evidentiary or procedural issues were either properly handled or harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prongs 1 & 2 (danger to child; parent unable/unwilling to remove harm) | Parents' ongoing substance abuse, positive newborn tests, missed treatment and visits, and incarceration endangered children and parents failed to remedy issues. | Carla: drug use at birth alone does not show harm; Division failed to provide appropriate referrals. | Court found clear and convincing evidence of ongoing danger and parental inability/unwillingness to remediate; prongs 1–2 satisfied. |
| Prong 3 (reasonable efforts and alternatives) | Division repeatedly offered evaluations, treatment, visitation arrangements, and explored alternatives; grandparents refused KLG and sought adoption. | Defendants: Division services were deficient; judge relied on hearsay about grandparents' intent. | Court held Division made determined, reasonable efforts; judge properly considered and credited admissible testimony that grandparents would adopt; any hearsay error harmless. |
| Prong 4 (termination will not do more harm than good) | Expert testimony showed strong/likely secure bonding to grandparents and that termination would not cause enduring psychological harm; children needed permanency. | Defendants: lack of updated bonding evaluation and alleged misapplication of evidentiary/standard (clear & convincing). | Court credited expert, balanced need for permanency, found termination would not do more harm than good; prong 4 satisfied. |
| Evidentiary objections & claim of judicial bias | Judge reviewed records, sustained multiple objections, and stated he would only rely on admissible evidence. | Defendants: judge admitted documents with embedded hearsay and failed to rule on all objections; Carla alleged bias. | Appellate court found trial court's procedure imperfect but judge limited reliance to admissible evidence; no reversible error or demonstrated bias. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (N.J. 1999) (establishes the four‑prong statutory best‑interests standard for termination).
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (N.J. 2012) (best‑interests focus of TPR proceedings; role of fail‑safe fourth prong).
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (N.J. 2007) (prongs overlap to form a composite assessment of the child’s best interests).
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (N.J. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings and the court’s “feel of the case”).
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (N.J. 2014) (standard for upholding trial‑court findings: adequate, substantial, and credible evidence).
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2013) (parental drug use during pregnancy or newborn positive test alone is not always dispositive on harm).