New Jersey Div. of Youth v. Is
25 A.3d 1214
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Division sought to care for and supervise twins N.S. and S.S. after removal from I.S. and E.S. in Sept. 2007; court first held under Title 30 that I.S. unable to safely care for the girls and ordered Division custody with residential placement.
- Holley House residential treatment placement established for both girls (S.S. remained there until early 2009; N.S. later); court did not terminate rights and planned services through DDD and YCS.
- A January 2008 fact-finding under Title 9 found no abuse/neglect by either parent but continued Division custody under Title 30 based on parental inability to provide proper care.
- Pervasive developmental disorders and other issues characterized the girls; mother sought residential placement and services rather than regular foster care or separation.
- Permanency plans (2008–2009) favored reunification with E.S. for S.S. and stabilization for N.S. with I.S. after residential treatment; R-PR (no termination) was recognized as an exception due to emotional needs.
- January 2010 GM/custody/disposition hearing concluded S.S. could not be safely returned to I.S.; court conducted best interests analysis; determined S.S. should stay with E.S. and N.S. with I.S., with no parenting-time order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title 9 and Title 30 proceedings may run concurrently | Division contends hybrid proceedings are permissible with proper due process and standards. | I.S. argues for separation or improper combination of proceedings; risks of due process concerns and misapplication of standards. | Yes; hybrid proceedings are permissible with proper safeguards. |
| Whether the court properly continued Division custody under Title 30 after no abuse/neglect finding | Division can seek care/custody to ensure health/safety when parents cannot provide proper care. | I.S. contends Title 30 findings were not proven; home safety and care could be achieved without ongoing Division custody. | Supported; substantial evidence showed lack of parental ability to provide care, justifying continued Division custody. |
| Whether S.S. could be kept in custody away from I.S. and whether termination of parental rights was implicated | Title 9/30 dispositions may maintain custody without termination if best interests and safety justify it. | No termination or strict loss of parental rights; otherwise, no substantial change in circumstances justifying removal. | No de facto termination; custody determined in best interests, with no visitation order but no termination. |
| Whether the court properly considered best interests under N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 in S.S.'s custody | Best interests factors support keeping S.S. with E.S. given progress and safety. | Mother argues for return or more extensive consideration of parental relationship with S.S. | The court's best interests analysis was supported by substantial credible evidence; S.S. favored living with E.S. |
| Whether the court erred in considering I.S.'s in-court behavior in its findings | Court properly considered demeanor to assess reliability and safety concerns. | In-court behavior should not drive findings; any error was harmless given other evidence. | Harmless error; substantial evidence supported the resulting findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (constitutionally protected parental rights balanced against state welfare)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (parens patriae balancing of state interests)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.M., 136 N.J. 546 (1994) (concurrent Title 9/30 jurisdiction; deference to family court findings)
- G.M. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 198 N.J. 382 (2009) (consolidation of Title 9 and Title 30 proceedings; preponderance vs. clear-and-convincing standards)
- R.D. v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 207 N.J. 88 (2011) (clear and convincing standard in Title 30; guardianship considerations)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (family court deference to factual findings and logical inferences)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.P., 408 N.J. Super. 252 (2009) (Appellate review of permanency and services; not a termination when appropriate)
- State v. Adames, 409 N.J. Super. 40 (2009) (consideration of a defendant's demeanor in trial setting)