New Jersey Div. of Youth v. Klw
18 A.3d 193
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- K.K.W. was born March 2008; admitted to hospital in critical condition with cocaine exposure and medical needs; Division took custody April 3, 2008 and placed her with St. Clare's until Sept. 2008.
- P.L.J. had a history of drug abuse and depression; several prior allegations were unsubstantiated, but she surrendered custody of earlier children to grandparents.
- Relatives were identified early (maternal grandparents, other kin) but the Division failed to contact them or assess suitability in a timely manner.
- A relative placement with Mrs. T., a non-relative foster caregiver, was pursued, with reunification the stated goal but persisted neglect to locate relatives.
- In 2009–2010, additional relatives were identified (South Carolina sister; Bayonne aunt; other relatives) but the Division did not meaningfully assess them; guardianship trial occurred May 2010.
- The trial court terminated parental rights based on best interests; on appeal, court reversed and remanded due to the Division’s failure to comply with N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Division violated N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12.1 by failing to locate/assess relatives. | Division argues privacy concerns and status of guardianship. | Parents contend relatives were not properly contacted/assessed. | Division violated statute; remand. |
| Effect of relative neglect on best-interests analysis under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1. | Best interests favored termination due to harm and lack of alternative caregivers. | Siblings/relatives could provide permanency; harm mitigated by kinship caretakers. | Remand to reconsider best-interests with relative options. |
| Whether kinship guardianship/relative placement was properly considered before termination. | Kinship options should be explored before termination. | Terminations permitted if adoption unlikely and relatives unavailable. | Court must reassess with relative options; not foreclose kinship guardianship. |
| Is a prolongation of permanency warranted when relative options exist but were not properly investigated? | Delay admissible only if in child’s best interests. | Delay acceptable if relatives eventually assessed. | Remand to allow reassessment with relative options. |
| Impact of trial court’s reliance on specific expert opinions given incomplete relative search. | Experts favored permanency with Mrs. T.; concerns about separation. | Experts acknowledged potential harm but supported adoption to Mrs. T. | Remand to incorporate fuller relative evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172 (App.Div.1993) (credibility and standard of review in guardianship matters)
- N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007) (court deference to trial judge; substantial evidence standard)
- M.F., 357 N.J. Super. 515 (App.Div.2003) (relatives preferred when possible; impact of failure to consider relatives)
- P.P., 180 N.J. 494 (2004) (kinship guardianship not precluded when adoption not feasible; relative considerations)
- S.S., 187 N.J. 556 (2006) (importance of sibling relationships in permanency planning)
- G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (parens patriae; division’s duty to act in child’s welfare)