New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. R.L.M., 160 A.3d 714

Infant Riley (born Dec. 2013) was removed by Dodd emergency removal; Division sought guardianship and eventual TPR; trial in Feb. 2016 resulted in termination of parental rights of Rachel (mother) and Jim (father).
Division presented testimony (caseworker, Dr. Alan Lee, and other mental-health evaluators) that parents had inconsistent visitation, incomplete engagement in services, insecure bonds with Riley, and poor prognosis for parental improvement; resource parents provided stable, strong bonds.
Rachel had more recent treating-psychologist sessions showing progress but retained a consultant (Dr. Wiltsey) who gave a guarded prognosis; court relied on testifying experts for its best-interests findings.
Rachel challenged the court’s reliance on prior non-testifying experts’ opinions as hearsay; Jim challenged findings under best-interests prongs 3–4 and moved (at various times) to represent himself or replace counsel.
Trial court found Division met all four statutory best-interests prongs by clear and convincing evidence and denied Jim’s mid-trial/self-representation request as equivocal and untimely; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination best-interests findings were unsupported	Division/Law Guardian: findings supported by testimony of caseworker and testifying experts	Rachel and Jim: challenge specific prongs (Rachel: prong 2; Jim: prongs 3–4)	Affirmed — trial court credibility findings supported by substantial evidence; judgment largely sustained
Admissibility of non-testifying experts’ opinions	Rachel: court erred by considering hearsay opinions of two non-testifying mental-health examiners	Division: harmless because court relied on more recent testifying experts	Held: Error, if any, was harmless — ultimate decision based on testifying experts and recent evaluations
Right to self-representation in TPR proceedings	Jim: claimed a constitutional right to represent himself (Faretta-style) and sought new trial when denied	Division/Law Guardian: no Sixth Amendment right in civil TPR context; request was equivocal/untimely	Held: No constitutional right to self-representation in TPR; even if recognized, Jim’s request was equivocal and untimely, so denial proper
Timeliness and waiver of pro se request / substitution of counsel	Jim: attempted mid-case/mid-trial requests to proceed pro se or replace counsel	Court: requests were wavering, late, sometimes withdrawn; switching would delay permanency and prejudice child	Held: Court did not abuse discretion denying late/unequivocal requests; balancing child’s interest in permanency justified denial

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527 (discussing deference to trial court fact and credibility findings)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (standards on appellate review of trial court factfinding)
In re Adoption of a Child by J.E.V. & D.G.V., 226 N.J. 90 (recognizing right to counsel in contested adoption/TPR contexts under Mathews balancing)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.R., 192 N.J. 301 (right to counsel in TPR cases)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (establishing criminal Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (three-factor due-process balancing test)
In re Civil Commitment of D.Y., 218 N.J. 359 (declining a broad right of self-representation in civil commitment proceedings)
State v. Crisafi, 128 N.J. 499 (standards on waiver and manipulation of counsel/self-representation requests)
State v. King, 210 N.J. 2 (discussion of limits on Faretta right in criminal cases)