Y.G.P. VS. A.H.R. (FD-12-1542-16, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4357-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (mother) filed in Family Part seeking findings necessary for her daughter R.H.G., an 11-year-old Mexican-born noncitizen, to apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status.
- Plaintiff certified the child entered the U.S. clandestinely in 2015, lives with mother in Middlesex County, and is thriving academically; father in Mexico allegedly abused, neglected, and could not provide for the child.
- Family Part denied without prejudice plaintiff’s motion, finding the child had not been abandoned under N.J.S.A. 9:6-1 and concluding the child did not meet statutory SIJ requirements, based solely on plaintiff’s verified pleadings and certifications and without an evidentiary hearing.
- Trial judge relied in part on an Appellate Division approach (H.S.P. v. J.K., App. Div.) and stated the child’s thriving with mother did not justify court intervention for anything other than immigration benefits.
- Appellant appealed; the trial judge provided a Rule 2:5-1(b) letter-opinion amplifying rationale. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for de novo review by a different Family Part judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Family Part applied correct legal role when making SIJ-related findings | Family Part must make predicate child-welfare findings under state law for SIJ; plaintiff argued court exceeded by relying on wrong analytic approach and precedent | Trial court relied on App. Div. precedent and concluded reunification was viable; treated SIJ-eligibility like federal immigration determination | Court held Family Part misapplied law (contrary to NJ Supreme Court in H.S.P.) and cannot substitute federal SIJ decision-making; judge’s reasoning conflicted with controlling precedent and required reconsideration |
| Whether the court erred by making factual findings (no abandonment/neglect) without an evidentiary hearing | Plaintiff argued the court improperly rejected uncontradicted sworn certification alleging father’s abuse/abandonment and should have held an evidentiary hearing | Court felt judicial economy permitted decision on submitted certifications and that facts about better opportunities in U.S. did not justify dependency | Court held the judge improperly made factual findings unsupported by the record; where credibility/questions exist, an evidentiary hearing was required; reversed and remanded for de novo review by a different judge |
Key Cases Cited
- H.S.P. v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196 (2015) (Supreme Court clarifying Family Part’s limited role to make state child-welfare predicate findings for SIJ applications and rejecting courts deciding federal immigration eligibility)
- H.S.P. v. J.K., 435 N.J. Super. 147 (App. Div. 2014) (Appellate Division opinion whose approach was later rejected by the NJ Supreme Court)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (Family Part’s special competence in family matters; appellate deference to factual findings supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence)
- Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269 (2016) (standard for accepting Family Part factual findings on appeal)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. K.M., 444 N.J. Super. 325 (App. Div.) (discussing Family Part jurisdiction under Title 9 and Title 30 for custody and care determinations)