IMPORTANT TPR CASES TO KNOW
In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999): Parents have a constitutionally protected right to maintain a relationship with their children. However, parental rights are not absolute. As such, the State through its parens patriae power has the responsibility of protecting the welfare of children and may terminate parental rights if a child is at risk
of serious emotional or physical harm. The statutory best interest of the child standard balances the rights of the natural parents with the State’s responsibility as parens patriae.
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Services v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 280 (2007):
Under the statutory best interest of the child standard as enumerated in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), the Division of Youth & Family Services (Division), when seeking the termination of a parent’s rights, has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing proof the following four factors:
(1) The child’s health and development has been or will continue to be endangered by continuation of the parental relationship;
(2) 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;
(3) 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
(4) Termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good.
In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (1992): To satisfy the fourth prong, DYFS (now DCPP) must offer the testimony of ‘a well-qualified expert who has had full opportunity to make a comprehensive, objective, and informed evaluation’ of the child’s relationship with both the biological parents and foster parents.
DYFS v. C.M., 202 N.J. 145 (2010): Severing father's ties to son was gross and unwarranted abuse of the State's extrordinary power over its citizens, and the State is not entitled to TPR unless it proves the each of the four prongs of the statutory test undere N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(c) by clear and convincing evidence.
DYFS v. J.G., 217 N.J. 527(2014): Incarceration is not harm and parenting does not require custody. The State welfare authorites, supported by the Law Guardian, failed to prove a father's absence for over five years from a young daughter's life from 2004 to 2010 while in prison justified termination of his parental rights.
DYFS v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008): Reversed TPR given evidence that ending relationship with dysfunctional parent will harm child and that potential for alternative placement was minimal.
DYFS v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261 (2007): TPR affirmed against father where child was sometimes placed in the care of wife with limited mental capacity and who sometimes left home to binge on alcohol. Termination may be proper if one parent cannot provide safe home due to co-parent.
DYFS v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494 (2004): One form of alternative placement is the Kinship Legal Guardianship created by the Legislature in 2002.
DYFS v. L.L., 201 N.J. 210 (2010): Set two-part test to vacate KLG: (1) that parental incapacity that led to KLG has been remedied, and (2) that termination of KLG is in child's best interest based on open-ended list of relevant factors.
New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Services v. K.L.W. and P.L.J., 419 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 2011): The Division's statutory obligation under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12.1 "does not permit willful blindness and inexplicable delay in assessing and approving or disapproving a relative known to the Division, especially one whom the Division knows has custody of the child's siblings."