M.J.L.G. VS. G.R., IN THE MATTER OF O.N.R.L.(FD-14-0554-16, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0577-16T1

Background

Plaintiff (M.J.L.G.) sought sole legal and physical custody of her son Omar (born 2000), who is a Honduran national residing in New Jersey, and asked the Family Part to make the predicate findings necessary for Omar to apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status.
Defendant father (G.R.) was served in Honduras, acknowledged service, did not answer or appear.
At an uncontested hearing plaintiff and Omar testified about domestic violence, abandonment, lack of financial or emotional support from G.R., and unsafe conditions in Honduras; the court awarded plaintiff sole custody.
The Family Part found most SIJ statutory/regulatory requirements were satisfied (age, custody dependency, jurisdiction to decide custody, and that return to Honduras was not in Omar’s best interest).
The court declined to find that reunification with the father was not viable due to abandonment/neglect, reasoning it lacked personal jurisdiction over G.R. and could not "sever" his parental rights; it denied reconsideration on the same ground.
The Appellate Division reversed in part, holding the trial court erred in declining to make the abandonment/neglect (SIJ factor four) finding and remanded for that discrete factual determination under state child-welfare law and the UCCJEA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Family Part could make an SIJ-related finding that reunification with the father was not viable due to abandonment/neglect despite lack of in personam jurisdiction over the father	Court can and should make the abandonment/neglect finding; father was served and defaulted; findings are necessary predicate for SIJ	Court lacked personal jurisdiction/minimum contacts over a foreign father who never entered U.S., so it could not make findings affecting his parental status	Reversed in part: UCCJEA authorizes the court to decide custody-status issues without traditional in personam jurisdiction; trial court must decide whether reunification is not viable due to abandonment/neglect and enter the requisite SIJ findings
Whether sole custody award obviates the need to make SIJ predicate findings as to the father	Plaintiff: custody award does not replace or eliminate the required separate SIJ findings	Court viewed custody grant as effectively resolving the issue and thought further SIJ findings unnecessary without jurisdiction over father	Court: custody award does not obviate the separate SIJ findings; court must make explicit findings on each SIJ factor
Applicable jurisdictional framework for custody-status determinations involving foreign parties	Plaintiff: UCCJEA governs and allows a state court to make custody/status findings even if a parent lacks U.S. contacts, provided service and notice requirements are met	Trial court relied on traditional minimum contacts rationale and declined to apply UCCJEA	Held: UCCJEA (and prior UCCJA principles) control; physical presence/personal jurisdiction is neither necessary nor sufficient for custody determinations; quasi in rem/status adjudication exception applies
Scope of Family Part’s role in SIJ cases	Plaintiff: Family Part must make state-law child-welfare findings for each SIJ element to allow USCIS to consider SIJ relief	No opposing SIJ-specific argument from defendant (no appearance)	Held: Family Part’s role is limited to state-law child-welfare findings (not immigration determinations); it must make separate findings as to each parent and each SIJ criterion under federal statute/regulations

Key Cases Cited

H.S.P. v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196 (N.J. 2015) (explains SIJ statutory/regulatory predicate findings and limits Family Part to child-welfare determinations)
Genoe v. Genoe, 205 N.J. Super. 6 (App. Div. 1985) (under UCCJA/UCCJEA, in personam jurisdiction not required for custody/status applications when notice and opportunity to be heard are provided)
Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.Y.J.P., 360 N.J. Super. 426 (App. Div.) (status adjudications as an exception to minimum-contacts requirement)
O.Y.P.C. v. J.C.P., 442 N.J. Super. 635 (App. Div. 2015) (court must make findings on each SIJ factor)
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1977) (discusses limits of personal jurisdiction and recognizes status adjudication contexts)