New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. L.M.
430 N.J. Super. 428
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- DYFS first became involved in 2006 after Laura’s newborn Terry tested positive for marijuana; services offered but not completed.
- In 2007 a Title Thirty care and supervision action was filed for Terry, Martin, and Sally; Peter was incarcerated and did not appear.
- DYFS sought custody and, by November 2007, the court granted custody; Sally’s placement involved a paternal relative, Martin with a foster home, and Terry with the same foster family.
- By 2009 Laura had given birth to Norman (July 2009) and DYFS obtained custody of him; permanency planning shifted from reunification to termination and adoption.
- The first guardianship trial (2010) found insufficient evidence to terminate as to Laura (and Peter’s status largely unaddressed); the court ordered Title Nine litigation reopened and services continued.
- The second guardianship trial (2011) resulted in termination of Laura’s and Peter’s rights to Sally on the four-prong test; Sally’s termination was later vacated on appeal and remanded for Title Nine proceedings with proper representation and a renewed reunification plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Sally’s prong (1) danger to safety/health met? | DYFS showed ongoing risk from Laura’s conduct. | Laura argues insufficient or stale risk; law of the case defense. | Prong (1) satisfied as to Sally. |
| Did DYFS prove prongs (2) (3) and (4) for Sally? | DYFS proved harm, reasonable services, and no adequate alternatives. | DYFS failed on harm/alternative considerations; insufficient services for Sally’s needs. | Prongs (2)-(4) not proven for Sally; judgment vacated as to Sally. |
| Did due process and representation issues affect Peter’s prongs? | Peter was repeatedly unrepresented and denied counsel at critical stages; services were lacking. | DYFS argues some services and visits were provided; issues were procedural. | Remand with counsel for Title Nine; due process concerns require reopening with representation. |
| Were prongs (3)-(4) properly analyzed for Laura and Martin/Norman? | Court relied on bonding/attachment and housing while ignoring alternatives; petition balanced. | DYFS provided reasonable services and found placement options. | Affirm as to Laura’s rights to Martin and Norman; Sally’s rights reversed on remand; remand directs reunification plan. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re G.L., 191 N.J. 596 (N.J. 2007) (parents' rights are balanced against state protection; standard requires substantial evidence for termination)
- A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (N.J. 1986) (four-prong best interests test for termination; emphasis on child’s best interests)
- D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (N.J. 1999) (precedent on harms to child and need for careful consideration of permanency and placement)
- K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (N.J. 1999) (principles on continued harm, permanency planning and reasonable efforts)
- F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (N.J. 2012) (standard for reviewing family-court termination decisions; credibility of record)
- J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1992) (parental rights and permanency considerations; assessment of harm and abandonment)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (fundamental right to custody; due process considerations in child welfare)