New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. M.G.
427 N.J. Super. 154
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- M.G. regularly attended Title 9/Title 30 hearings and was represented, including during incarceration.
- DYFS removed A.R.G. and filed abuse/neglect complaints in December 2009 seeking custody and related relief.
- M.G. had intermittent compliance with court-ordered evaluations and services (substance abuse, psychological, anger management) and was sometimes non-compliant.
- A default was entered against M.G. in May 2010 for non-compliance with court-ordered drug screens and services, and related proof demands were imposed.
- In 2010–2011, M.G. was incarcerated but continued to participate in hearings; the court later entered default in the guardianship proceeding without a full defense.
- The trial court admitted expert reports from psychologists without requiring cross-examination, and later terminated parental rights based on those reports and other evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was default validly entered against M.G. based on non-compliance? | M.G. failed to comply with orders and default followed under Rule 4:43-1/P.W.R. | The non-compliance with court-ordered services justified a default in the context of termination proceedings. | Default improper; defendant did not fail to defend; need plenary hearing |
| Did procedural flaws deny fundamentally fair procedures before termination of parental rights? | Procedural safeguards were adequate under the rules and case law. | Procedures complied with prior rulings and supported termination based on evidence. | Procedural flaws violated fundamental fairness; remand for new trial |
| May the Division rely on written expert reports without cross-examining the experts? | Expert reports were admissible as business records under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6). | The experts should be cross-examined; their opinions require live testimony. | Abuse of discretion; cross-examination required; exclude unproduced expert opinions unless trustworthy findings |
| Did the court err in admitting expert opinions without proper trustworthiness findings when the experts were consultants for the Division? | The opinions were properly documentary; no need for live testimony. | The opinions require trustworthiness findings and live testimony. | Required explicit trustworthiness findings; error to admit without such findings |
Key Cases Cited
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.J.B., 338 N.J. Super. 425 (App.Div. 2001) (fundamental fairness required before parental rights termination)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 410 N.J. Super. 501 (App.Div. 2009) (default not proper when represented; discovery/preparation sanctions discussed)
- In re Guardianship of N.J., 340 N.J. Super. 558 (App.Div. 2001) (distinguishes default for appearance vs. failure to comply with orders)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (Supreme Court 2010) (distinguishes defaults and due process in guardianship context)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.H., 340 N.J. Super. 617 (App.Div. 2001) (importance of cross-examination in default cases involving parental rights)