New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. R.G. and J.G. (069970)
217 N.J. 527
| N.J. | 2014Background
- J.G. is Tara's birth father; Tara and her brother were initially cared for by Tara's mother R.G. after his incarceration (2004).
- Division first intervened in July 2008 due to concerns about R.G.'s alcohol use; Tara was removed and placed with maternal grandmother G.B.; Division offered reunification services to R.G.
- A permanency plan in 2009 shifted toward termination of R.G. and J.G.'s parental rights with adoption by G.B.; K.G. was adopted by G.B. in 2010 after R.G. surrendered rights.
- In 2010, the sole contested issue became whether to terminate J.G.'s parental rights to Tara; J.G. sought to maintain a relationship rather than custody.
- Psychologist Miller testified that Tara suffered harm from nearly six years of absence and that there was no bond between Tara and J.G.; he urged termination to protect Tara's permanency.
- Trial court found insufficient evidence to terminate J.G.'s rights by clear and convincing evidence; Appellate Division majority reversed; Supreme Court reinstated trial court and remanded with options open.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether four-prong standard satisfied for termination | Division asserts all four prongs met by clear and convincing evidence. | J.G. argues incarceration alone insufficient; division failed on prongs three and four. | Prongs not met; termination improper; court reinstates trial ruling and remands. |
| Impact of incarceration on harm to Tara | Incarceration ongoing harm to Tara because of lack of contact and stability. | Appellant pre-incarceration care and post-incarceration attempts show harm; harm established by length of absence. | Incarceration alone insufficient; need particularized harm; court finds evidence insufficient. |
| Division's provision of services to incarcerated parent | Division provided meaningful services and reunification efforts; focus on primary caretaker was appropriate. | Division provided cursory services to J.G.; failed to tailor services to incarcerated parent; bonding evaluation lacking. | Division failed to prove reasonable services to J.G.; remand permitted to consider enhanced services. |
| Adequacy of alternatives to termination (KLG vs adoption) | KLG viable but not adequately pursued; adoption by grandmother appropriate given bond and permanency needs. | KLG not required if adoption feasible; termination justified given best interests and permanency. | KLG not mandatory; however, evidence did not conclusively show termination would best serve Tara; remand allowed reconsideration. |
| Best interests and permanency if parental rights terminated | Termination would advance Tara's permanency in a stable home with grandmother; Tara expressed preference for adoption. | Terminating would disrupt strong but non-primary bond with father; Tara would be harmed by severing ties. | Permanency and bonds must be balanced; evidence did not show termination would not cause more harm; remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- L.A.S. v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 134 N.J. 127 (1993) (incarceration alone not enough; factors to assess impact on parenting)
- In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440 (2002) (special deference to trial court findings in guardianship cases)
- In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999) (reasonable efforts; monitoring and adapting services)
- T.S. v. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 417 N.J. Super. 228 (2010) (incarceration context in appellate reversal; focus on pre-incarceration relationship)
- A.W. v. Division of Youth & Family Servs., 103 N.J. 591 (1986) (constitutional framework; permanency and parental rights)