New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. J.S. in the Matter of the Guardianship of A.G., a Minor
433 N.J. Super. 69
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- The Division of Youth and Family Services sought to terminate J.S.'s parental rights to A.G., born Oct. 2009, who has resided with his foster family since 2010 after a Dodd removal.
- A.G.'s biological mother J.G. surrendered the child to the foster parents in April 2011; defendant J.S. faced mental health and substance-abuse issues and had cocaine positives during probation in early 2012.
- Defendant initially proposed four relatives as potential alternative caretakers; two eventually identified relatives, M.R. and J.P., were ruled out by the Division on best-interests grounds after investigation.
- A bonding evaluation showed A.G. is strongly attached to his foster parents, and removing him from them would cause harm and regress developmental gains.
- The Family Part conducted an eight-day guardianship trial in 2012, relying on the Division's expert and evidence, and terminated J.S.'s parental rights; the Division's rule-out authority and procedures were challenged on appeal.
- The appellate panel held that the Division may rule out relatives on best-interests grounds under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12.1 and N.J.A.C. 10:120A-3.1, but the Family Part retains ultimate authority to assess the child's best interests, and the record supported termination under the four-prong test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Division rule out relatives based on best interests under 30:4C-12.1(c)? | Division interpretation consistent with statute and regulation. | Division usurps court role by premising on best interests without full trial evidence. | Yes; Division may rule out relatives on best-interests grounds, with court retaining ultimate best-interests review. |
| Did the Division's rule-out of M.R. and J.P. comply with 30:4C-12.1 and provide alternatives assessment? | Division properly identified and evaluated relatives, finding no viable alternatives. | Relatives were not adequately evaluated and the rule-outs were premature or inappropriate. | Division's rule-outs were supported by clear and convincing evidence; no viable alternatives were presented. |
| Did the Division's best-interests rule-out regulation (N.J.A.C. 10:120A-3.1) conflict with court role? | Regulation is a reasonable administrative tool within agency discretion. | Regulation diminishes court's exclusive role in deciding best interests. | Regulation valid; court remains ultimate arbiter of the child's best interests. |
| Were the Division's services to the parent sufficiently reasonable to satisfy prong three of 30:4C-15.1(a)? | Division provided parenting instruction, supervision, treatment, and transportation; efforts were reasonable. | Inpatient treatment or more targeted services were required; services were inadequate. | Yes; trial court properly found reasonable efforts and adequate services. |
| Does termination of parental rights best serve A.G.'s fourth-prong best-interests inquiry? | Termination promotes permanency and strong bonds with foster parents; minimal risk from termination. | Maintaining parental ties could be in A.G.'s best interests if a suitable plan emerged. | Termination serves A.G.'s best interests; continued placement with foster parents is preferable and stable. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (parental rights are constitutionally protected but subject to parens patriae welfare concerns)
- D.Y. & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012) (broad framework for termination of parental rights and best interests)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986) (four-prong test for termination of parental rights)
- J.N.H. v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 172 N.J. 440 (2002) (scope of appellate review and factual sufficiency in guardianship cases)
- K.L.W. v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 419 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 2011) (prompt relative search and nonpresumption favoring relative placement)
- G.L. v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (fourth-prong cautionary rationale in termination decisions)
- J.C. v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 129 N.J. 1 (1992) (paramount need for permanent parent-child relationships)