DCPP VS. T.M.T. AND M.S.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.E.T.(FG-09-0112-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4777-15T3

Background

Mother T.M.T. has chronic, severe mental illness (bipolar disorder, depression, alcohol abuse) and a long history of refusing or limiting court-ordered evaluations and services; several of her other children’s parental rights were previously terminated.
Daughter J.E.T. ("Jill"), born 2003, was removed from mother’s care in 2008; she has special needs (ADHD, boundary/sexualized behaviors, academic and peer issues) and experienced multiple foster placements.
In 2012 appellate proceedings the court upheld prior findings that mother’s untreated mental illness precluded safe parenting; the court allowed the Division to refile for guardianship if adoptive homes became available.
Jill was placed with a therapeutic resource family (Family B) in April 2015; that family had cared for her for over a year and the Division presented evidence they were committed to adopting Jill.
The Division filed for guardianship in August 2015; after a three-day trial Judge Santiago terminated T.M.T.’s parental rights on June 24, 2016, finding all statutory prongs satisfied, including that termination would do more good than harm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination met statutory prong 4 (will termination do more harm than good)?	Division: resource parents are able to ameliorate harm; child formed attachment and would not suffer enduring harm from termination.	T.M.T.: Division failed to prove adoptability by clear and convincing evidence; termination would harm child.	Held: Court found sufficient credible evidence (bonding eval, psychiatrist testimony, stability in resource home) to satisfy prong 4.
Whether Division proved an adoptive option existed for Jill	Division: resource family committed and experienced with challenging children; Jill stable and attached there.	T.M.T.: No firsthand testimony from resource family; past placement failures show uncertainty.	Held: Court accepted expert testimony and placement history as sufficient to show adoptability.
Whether the judge was impartial	Division: decision based on evidence and statutory factors.	T.M.T.: Judge pre-judged and was biased (cited judge’s comments and interactions).	Held: No basis for bias; record shows decision grounded in evidence.
Whether the Division made reasonable efforts to provide services (prong 3)	Division: offered services (parenting, therapy, med monitoring), housing help, referrals; previously obtained no-reasonable-efforts order but still provided services.	T.M.T.: Uncooperative and moved to Florida, refused evaluations.	Held: Court found Division’s efforts adequate and that mother remained unwilling to engage.

Key Cases Cited

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (family court findings entitled to deference due to expertise in family matters)
In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (four‑prong best‑interests standard for termination of parental rights)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (standard of review for termination decisions; deference to Family Part)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012) (clear and convincing burden applies to all statutory prongs)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986) (balancing parent-child and foster relationships under prong four)