Title: New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. G.L.

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 83 September Term 2006 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. G.L., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.J.C., A MINOR. Argued May 2, 2007 Decided July 9, 2007 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Beatrix W. Shear, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Shear and Mark E. Tabakman, Designated Counsel, on the letter briefs). Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Ms. Silkowitz and Monique D Errico, Deputy Attorney General, on the letter briefs). Cynthia A. McCulloch, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for respondent M.J.C. (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney). Diana Dunker argued the cause for amicus curiae, Legal Services of New Jersey (Melville D. Miller, Jr., President, attorney; Ms. Dunker, Mr. Miller, Mary M. McManus-Smith and John A. Salois, on the brief). PER CURIAM On this appeal we revisit the issue that we recently addressed in New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007): When may a parent be subjected to the termination of her parental rights for failing to eliminate harm to the child posed by her spouse? The parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable home for the child and the delay of permanent placement will add to the harm. Such harm may include evidence that separating the child from his resource family parents would cause serious and enduring emotional or psychological harm to the child; The division has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the circumstances which led to the child s placement outside the home and the court has considered alternatives to termination of parental rights; and Termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good. [N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a.] DYFS bears the burden of proving each of those prongs by clear and convincing evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 611-12 (1986) (adopting clear and convincing standard as minimum required by Fourteenth Amendment). Furthermore, when a trial judge applies the statute, he must be cognizant that the considerations involved are extremely fact sensitive and require particularized evidence that address the specific circumstances in the given case. M.M., supra, 189 N.J. at 280 (internal quotations omitted). Importantly, those four prongs are not discrete and separate, but relate to and overlap with one another to provide a comprehensive standard that identifies a child s best interests. In re K.H.O., supra, 161 N.J. at 348. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. G.L., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.J.C., A MINOR. JUSTICE WALLACE, JR., concurring. I concur in the result. Unlike the majority, I cannot distinguish this case from Division of Youth & Family Services v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007). In my view, in both this case and in M.M., the Division failed to satisfy by clear and convincing evidence the requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a to justify termination of parental rights. JUSTICE RIVERA-SOTO joins in this opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-83 SEPTEMBER TERM 2006 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. G.L., Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.J.C., A MINOR. DECIDED July 9, 2007 Chief Justice Zazzali PRESIDING OPINION BY Per Curiam CONCURRING OPINION BY Justice Wallace DISSENTING OPINION BY