L.K. AND M.K. VS. A.K.(FD-16-0875-12, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-4056-15T2
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Jul 7, 2017Background
- Mother (M.S.) has a long history with child-welfare services and prior termination of parental rights to another child; daughter Terri born 2012 and was placed with paternal relative Ruth (resource parent) from birth; Ruth seeks to adopt.
- Mother suffers serious, chronic physical and mental health problems that have required repeated hospitalizations and leave her dependent on assistance (uses a wheelchair); she never had custody of Terri.
- The Division provided extensive reunification services (in‑home therapy, parenting classes, supervised visits with transportation), but mother was unable to independently care for Terri; visits required assistance and were sometimes canceled due to medical crises.
- The Division investigated alternate placements, including maternal resource parent Linda (who had licensing/therapeutic placement issues) and mother’s son Peter as an aide; both alternatives were rejected after evaluation (Linda would disrupt other children and Terri bonded to Ruth; Peter had ongoing drug use, failed to complete programs and lacked maturity).
- Experts for the Division and Law Guardian (Drs. Gruen and Lee) concluded mother cannot parent now or in the foreseeable future, Terri is securely bonded to Ruth, and severing the maternal tie would not cause significant enduring harm while disrupting Ruth’s caretaking would.
- Mother presented an expert (Dr. Brown) who opined strong bonds to both mother and Ruth and recommended kinship legal guardianship (KLG); the trial judge found portions of his testimony relied on incorrect facts and was not credible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Division satisfied prong 3 (reasonable efforts and consideration of alternatives) | Division made extraordinary, reasonable efforts and properly investigated/ruled out alternatives (Linda, Peter, KLG) | Mother argued Division failed to fully consider alternatives (KLG with Linda or placement with mother assisted by Peter) | Court: Division met burden; alternatives were reasonably investigated and rejected as unsuitable or infeasible (adoption by Ruth was available, Peter unsuitable, Linda would disrupt other children and Terri bonded to Ruth) |
| Whether termination satisfies prong 4 (termination will not do more harm than good) | Termination in Terri’s best interests—permanency with Ruth outweighs loss of maternal/sibling contact; experts: little maternal bond and strong Ruth bond | Mother argued termination would cause significant psychological harm, siblings’ relationships weigh against termination | Court: Agreed with Division and experts (Drs. Gruen and Lee); severing parental rights would not cause severe, enduring harm and disruption of Terri’s bond with Ruth would be more damaging; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (standard of appellate review and deference to family court factfinding)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (trial court findings binding when supported by substantial credible evidence)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (2010) (deference to family courts' expertise in child-welfare matters)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.I., 423 N.J. Super. 127 (App. Div. 2011) (if adoption is available, KLG cannot be used to defeat termination)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012) (court entitled to accept or reject expert bonding opinions)
- In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999) (standards for weighing expert testimony on bonding)