New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. L.J.D.
428 N.J. Super. 451
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Lela, then fourteen, gave birth to Alvin; Alvin placed in Division custody at birth due to Lela's status as a minor.
- Division provided extensive services over years to attempt reunification, including counseling, parenting classes, and in-home supports.
- Lela exhibited persistent impulsivity, anger, and unstable housing through adolescence, with multiple placements disrupted.
- Experts repeatedly found Lela not presently capable of independent parenting and recommended supervised or structured programs; some urged termination to protect Alvin.
- In 2010–2011 the Division sought guardianship and termination of parental rights; trial court found four-prong best-interests standard satisfied and ordered termination.
- Alvin, having bonded with resource parents for years, was deemed best served by adoption rather than return to Lela; father’s rights were also terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the four prongs were met by clear and convincing evidence. | Division argues evidence satisfies all prongs for termination. | Lela contends insufficient evidence of ongoing harm and parenting inability. | Yes; four prongs satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether Division’s reasonable efforts were adequate given Lela’s custodial status. | Division tailored intensive, ongoing services for a very young parent and child. | Lela argues better efforts (e.g., second Mommy & Me) were available but not provided. | Yes; heightened, custodial-status-specific efforts were reasonable. |
| Whether termination would cause more harm than good to Alvin. | Maintaining reunification delay would harm Alvin; permanency with resource parents is best. | Lela asserts some bond exists and termination would overly sever that bond. | Termination would not do more harm than good; permanency with resource parents favored. |
| Whether the court properly weighed bonds and future risk if Alvin were placed with Lela. | Experts showed Alvin’s bond to resource parents outweighed Lela’s bond. | Lela contends her bond and potential for future stability justify reunification. | Correctly weighed; risk to Alvin from reunification outweighed benefits of Lela’s bond. |
| Whether the Division could or should have offered additional reunification avenues (e.g., Mommy & Me). | No realistic program would have yielded success; other options impractical or unsafe. | Division’s failure to pursue another Mommy & Me placement undermines reasonable efforts. | Division’s decision not to pursue a second Mommy & Me was reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (1992) (strict standards protect parental rights in guardianship cases)
- In re Adoption of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) (four-part best interests test articulated)
- A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986) (best interests standard; time-sensitive permanency)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.R.G., 361 N.J. Super. 46 (App.Div. 2003) (onsite review of best interests factors with appellate deference)
- D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999) (reasonableness of reunification efforts; focus on child’s best interests)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. S.F., 392 N.J. Super. 201 (App.Div. 2007) (expedited permanency; preference for permanent placement)
- C.S., 367 N.J. Super. 76 (App.Div.) (consideration of relative placements and permanency planning)
- G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (2007) (expanded review; balancing child safety with parental rights)