SQUIRETOWN PROPERTIES, LLC VS. TOWNSHIP OF LIVINGSTON(L-9785-07 AND L-326-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0528-15T3
N.J. Super. App. Div. UJun 16, 2017Background
- Child A.R. (born 2007) removed by Division in Sept 2014 after mother R.D. exhibited psychosis at a hospital; emergent "Dodd" removal placed the child in a resource home and Division obtained custody.
- Mother had prior child-protective history (removals in 2008–2011) and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder; court ordered psychiatric treatment which she failed to follow and visits were sporadic.
- Father H.R. was located in Puerto Rico, obtained a favorable home study, traveled to New Jersey for unsupervised visits, and the child expressed a wish to live with him.
- Division proceeded under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12 (Title 30) rather than pursuing abuse/neglect findings under Title 9; parties and judge sometimes mischaracterized the August 21, 2015 dispositional hearing as a G.M. hearing.
- Mother stopped appearing in court after May 6, 2015; Division filed an Affidavit of Diligent Inquiry and held the August 21, 2015 dispositional hearing in her absence; the court awarded legal and physical custody to H.R. and dismissed the Title 30 litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Title 30 dispositional proceeding complied with statutory and procedural requirements | Division: followed Title 30 summary-hearing process, protected defendant's rights, provided notice/diligent inquiry, and met best-interest standard | R.D.: proceedings did not comply with N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12 procedural requirements; misnaming as G.M. hearing and lack of process | Court: procedures were adequate; defendant had counsel and opportunity to be heard; statutory requirements satisfied |
| Whether placing the child with H.R. (father) served the child’s best interests | Division: H.R. provided stable home, positive home study, child wished to be with father; mother noncompliant and mentally unfit | R.D.: implicitly challenged placement and process (lack of presence, naming error) | Court: credible evidence supported that placement with H.R. was in child’s best interests; removal from mother justified |
| Due process protections when parent absent and proceeding labeled incorrectly | Division: nomenclature error (calling it G.M.) was harmless; essential due process rights were preserved | R.D.: labeling and procedures deprived her of due process | Held: harmless error; defendant’s rights were protected (counsel present, opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine) |
| Whether award of custody to H.R. permanently foreclosed mother’s future relief | Division: custody award ends Title 30 case but does not bar future FD motions | R.D.: claimed permanent separation from child | Held: mother may seek custody/visitation later via motion on changed circumstances; not permanently barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150 (appellate deference to trial factfinding)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (credibility and appellate review principles)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (Family Part expertise and deference)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (limits on disturbing Family Part findings)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (deference and record sufficiency)
- N.J. Dep't of Children & Families v. I.S., 214 N.J. 8 (Title 30 summary hearing / best-interests standard)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382 (G.M. hearing explained; Title 9 context)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. W.F., 434 N.J. Super. 288 (post-Title 30 relief via FD motion)
- N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.S., 426 N.J. Super. 54 (statutory requirement that judge explain best-interest basis)
- Hand v. Hand, 391 N.J. Super. 102 (remedies and custody modification principles)