DCPP VS. T.M.K. AND V.S.P.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.M.K.(FG-01-0058-16, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1687-16T1

Father (T.M.K.) appealed termination of his parental rights to son K.M.K. (born 2008); mother voluntarily surrendered rights. Trial court granted guardianship to resource parents; appeal from December 12, 2016 judgment.
Child spent most of his life in foster/resource care after removals for parental drug use and lack of parenting; father incarcerated for ~3 years and has criminal history tied to drugs/weapons.
Division provided mental-health, drug-treatment, visitation, and reunification services; father failed to complete services, showed inconsistent visitation, missed screens/appointments, and lacked stable housing/income/support.
Court-appointed/Division expert psychologist (Dr. Lee) found child bonded to resource parents, no significant bond with father, and that termination would not cause long-term harm while removal from resource home would.
Trial judge found Division proved all four statutory prongs under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a by clear and convincing evidence and concluded termination served child’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parental rights may be terminated under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a	Division: father’s mental illness, substance abuse, criminal history, inconsistent parenting, and failure to complete services endanger child and justify termination	Father: Division failed to prove each of the four statutory prongs by clear and convincing evidence	Held: Trial court properly found all four prongs satisfied; judgment affirmed
Prong 1 — future endangerment to child’s safety/health/development	Division: father’s unresolved deficits and history create prospective harm	Father: disputes sufficiency of proof of current/prospective harm	Held: Court accepted expert testimony that father cannot provide a stable, nurturing home; prong 1 satisfied
Prong 3 — reasonable efforts by Division toward reunification	Division: provided myriad services and reasonable efforts despite lack of success	Father: argued some visitation discretionary and Division conduct problematic	Held: Court found Division made reasonable efforts; discretionary visitation justified by child’s fear
Prong 4 — termination will not do more harm than good	Division: expert showed child bonded to resource parents and would suffer more if removed from them than from severing ties with father	Father: asserted harm from terminating biological relationship	Held: Court relied on expert and comparative-harm analysis to conclude termination favored child’s need for permanency

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due process requires heightened standard in parental-rights termination)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental relationship as fundamental right)
In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (parental unfitness and best-interests framework)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (limits on parental rights when child protection requires)
In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (State obligation to protect children may override parental interest)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (four-prong best-interests test is integrated/overlapping)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (appellate standard of review for TPR findings)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (expert-evaluation importance under prong four)
In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (failure to provide permanent, safe, stable home as harm)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (comparative-harm focus in fourth-prong analysis)