New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. w.F. and R.F. in the Matter of J.F., J.F., J.F., J.F. and J.F., 434 N.J. Super. 288

Background

Parents W.F. (mother) and R.F. (father) had six children; Division (DYFS/now DCP&P) obtained care and supervision under the Title 9 (FN) docket in 2007 after referrals of physical abuse and dangerous altercations.
Various orders limited Father's access (protective order, supervised visitation), later modified for the three younger children to permit unsupervised parenting time; tensions and reassignment of judges produced intermittent restrictions.
Father filed a custody motion under the FD docket; on June 12, 2009 Father and Mother consented to joint legal custody of the three younger children with Mother as parent of primary residence; the FD order embodied that agreement.
The trial court terminated the FN litigation in June 2009 and again after remand, contemporaneously continuing the FD custody arrangement for the three younger children and eventually lifting the order of protection for the marital home while protecting Mother's new residence.
Father appealed, arguing the State changed his custodial rights without appropriate hearings (invoking G.M. and due process); during the litigation the three older children reached adulthood.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father can challenge custody of the three older children under FN after they turned 18	Father: FN termination and subsequent orders effectively removed custody without a proper dispositional/fact-finding hearing; he seeks return of custody	Division: Title 9 protects only persons under 18; the older children became adults so custody claims are moot	Moot — court cannot grant effective relief for custody of adult children; claims dismissed as academic
Whether custody of the three younger children was improperly changed in FN without a G.M. dispositional hearing	Father: FN docket post-remand changed custody without required dispositional procedures	Division/Mother: Custody of the younger three was resolved by parental consent in FD (June 12, 2009) and embodied in an FD order	Denied — custody of the three younger children was determined by consent in FD and is not contested on appeal; FN orders merely continued that FD arrangement
Whether G.M. required a dispositional hearing after remand	Father: G.M. requires a dispositional hearing to determine safe return of children after abuse/neglect findings	Division: G.M. applies only where a fact-finding finding of abuse/neglect has been made; no such finding occurred here	Not triggered — no fact-finding/finding of abuse and neglect occurred, so G.M. dispositional requirements did not apply
Whether Father was denied due process by the July 20, 2012 dispositional hearing	Father: Hearing changed custody without due process	Division/Mother: Hearing did not change custody (custody rests on FD consent); hearing addressed order of protection and home occupancy	Court: No due process issue because the dispositional hearing did not alter custody; custody issues are either moot or consensual

Key Cases Cited

Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382 (2009) (Title 9 dispositional-hearing principles and requirements)
In re I.S., 214 N.J. 8 (2013) (distinguishing G.M.; Title 9 action must be dismissed if abuse/neglect not established at fact-finding)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.C., 423 N.J. Super. 259 (App. Div. 2011) (mootness where requested relief cannot grant practical effect)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.L., 213 N.J. 1 (2013) (statutory age definitions under Title 9)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17 (2011) (addressing scope of Title 9 jurisdiction and mootness)
State ex rel. J.S., 202 N.J. 465 (2010) (limitations on Division services for persons over eighteen)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. N.D., 417 N.J. Super. 96 (App. Div. 2010) (parents may resolve custody by agreement in FN/FD context)