New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. L.J.D.
Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; October 17, 2012; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
The court, through Judge Lihotz, evaluated a young mother's (Lela's) appeal against a guardianship judgment that terminated her parental rights to her son, Alvin. Lela, only fourteen at Alvin's birth, was already under the care of the Division of Youth and Family Services (now the Division of Child Protection and Permanency) due to her own difficult circumstances. The Division assumed custody of Alvin at birth and provided services to Lela over the years, ultimately determining she could not ensure a safe environment for him. Following this conclusion, the Division filed for guardianship and termination of Lela's parental rights to enable Alvin's adoption. Lela contested the trial court's findings, arguing she did not harm Alvin and that the Division failed to provide adequate services to help her improve her situation.
After reviewing the case, the court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial judge's decision to terminate Lela's parental rights based on the statutory criteria. The court affirmed the guardianship award, emphasizing the necessity of a detailed account of events leading to the Division’s actions. The record indicated that Lela had previously faced neglect and abuse, had a history of behavioral issues, and lacked the resources to care for herself and her son. Following her pregnancy, the Division provided ongoing support, but a judge ultimately determined Lela was unable to care for Alvin, leading to the latter’s placement in foster care while efforts were made to find a joint placement for them.
Lela and Alvin engaged in weekly visitations and spent weekends together under the supervision of Lela's sister prior to their placement in the Union Industrial Home Family Partners "Mommy, Me" program (UIH) in July 2008. Lela underwent a psychological evaluation and was required to participate in individual counseling. Supervised visits continued, supported by a home health care aide to assist Lela with caring for her son. On October 1, 2008, UIH terminated Lela’s participation due to her defiant behavior and unwillingness to comply with program rules, including refusing staff directions and threatening others. The program director deemed Lela incapable of caring for her son and recommended intensive counseling and anger management.
Following her departure from UIH, Lela returned to live with her sister, while Alvin was placed with a resource family interested in adoption. The Division referred Lela to parenting programs, including Babyland Family Services and Innovative Specialists Inspirational Services (ISIS), which aimed to improve her parenting skills through therapy and counseling. Lela completed Babyland’s program and cooperated with ISIS.
On May 9, 2009, Lela's sister requested her removal after Lela became violent during an argument, threatening her sister with scissors. The sister also reported Lela’s school absences and non-compliance with medication for bipolar disorder. The Division noted Lela's significant school absences, including a suspension on May 14, 2009, after her removal from her sister’s home.
Lela was placed in the Newark YWCA shelter program, where she was required to participate in anger management and individual therapy. However, she was removed from the program after engaging in a physical altercation with another resident. Subsequently, she was placed in a foster home and underwent a psychological evaluation by Dr. Leslie A. Trott, Ed.D. Dr. Trott observed that Lela was "quite psychologically distressed," exhibiting confrontational and belligerent behavior, as well as signs of agitation and impulsivity. She reported experiencing hallucinations, including visions of her deceased grandmother, and refused prescribed medication. Dr. Trott diagnosed her with mental illness, noting her cognitive potential but highlighting her inability to distinguish right from wrong and her poor judgment, which impaired her parenting capabilities. He recommended that Lela not visit her infant without close supervision and suggested placement in a residence for teens with psychiatric services and evaluation for medication.
On June 7, 2009, Lela’s in-home therapist, Mary M. Gibbons, L.S.W., reported that Lela's attendance in therapy was sporadic and she had not made progress on court-mandated goals related to anger management and emotional issues from her abusive past. An incident occurred where Lela reacted angrily to Gibbons' honest feedback regarding her jeopardized reunification with her son Alvin, demanding Gibbons leave. Gibbons concluded that Lela required more intensive treatment than what was currently provided, possibly through a day treatment program offering psychiatric care and therapy. Additionally, a June 2009 report from Children’s Aid and Family Services, Inc. indicated that Lela was making little progress as a mother, lacking the maturity and insight necessary for effective parenting.
On July 9, 2009, Lela's resource mother reported to the Division that Lela had not returned home after leaving for summer school at 7:00 a.m., missing her 8:30 p.m. curfew, and had a history of running away. Lela returned home after midnight, and the resource mother described her behavior as abrupt and nasty. The Division suspected Lela had someone impersonate a Division worker to mislead the resource mother about her visitation with a sister. By September 2, 2009, the court approved the Division's plan to seek guardianship and terminate parental rights for Lela's child, Alvin, due to Lela's non-compliance with services, unresolved anger issues, and lack of maturity and stability. Lela was referred for individual counseling and anger management. Investigations into alternative relative placements for Alvin ruled out his paternal grandmother and Lela’s cousin, and Lela’s sister was also disqualified due to homelessness.
Lela’s father initially showed interest in parenting but failed to engage with the required services. A psychological evaluation by Dr. Iofin on September 6, 2009, led to a diagnosis of multiple disorders, including impulse control and personality disorders, and he deemed her unsuitable for reunification without professional supervision. Despite missing her first therapy session, Lela began attending anger management therapy on September 9, showing cooperation and engagement in her treatment. By the end of the year, although she faced some transportation issues, Lela demonstrated progress in managing her anger and completing parenting skills courses, earning relevant certificates. Joyce Lopez, L.C.S.W., reported significant improvements in Lela’s school performance, including perfect attendance and academic honors, and commended her dedication to reuniting with Alvin.
On January 6, 2010, the Division sought guardianship of Alvin, following which a protective services case was voluntarily dismissed. A psychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Rachael Ann Fite on March 8, 2010, found no psychosis or current concerns related to Lela’s past fire-starting behavior. Dr. Fite recognized Lela’s avoidance of substance abuse, her commitment to education, and improvements in managing violent outbursts. However, the evaluation revealed significant deficiencies in Lela’s parenting capabilities. Lela demonstrated a lack of realistic understanding of parental responsibilities and often became defensive when discussing specific issues affecting child safety. Although she had improved her interaction style and attended therapy regularly, Lela's judgment remained inconsistent, leading to ongoing instability.
Visitation reports indicated that Lela struggled to engage Alvin without causing distress, with supervisors noting his tendency to flee at the end of visits and Lela’s need to prioritize Alvin's needs over her own. Dr. Fite concluded that Lela had not achieved sufficient stability or parenting skills to safely care for Alvin, recommending the termination of her parental rights for adoption purposes. Despite Lela's positive response to therapy, consistent visitation, and expressions of love for her son, she continued to exhibit deficits in parenting, particularly during challenging situations. Her expectations of Alvin were developmentally inappropriate, and she struggled to separate her needs from his, displaying an idealistic view of parenting that did not align with reality.
Lela has attended parenting classes but struggles to fully absorb the information due to her age and maturity level. She faces stress from daily life and lacks familial support, which may lead to her feeling overwhelmed and hinder her ability to parent effectively. Evaluations conducted by the Division indicated similar concerns. On October 20, 2010, Dr. Mark Singer was tasked with assessing Lela's parenting capabilities, mental health, and treatment needs, as well as evaluating the bonding between Lela and her child, Alvin, and between Alvin and his resource parents. Dr. Singer found that Alvin has formed multiple attachments, recognizing both his mother and caregivers as parental figures. However, Lela exhibited difficulties in providing structure and understanding Alvin's developmental needs. The evaluation suggested that Alvin may have distanced himself from Lela due to their separation. Dr. Singer concluded Lela currently lacks the necessary skills and resources for independent parenting but noted that with continued intervention, she could become a viable option in the future. He recommended Lela participate in a structured "Mommy, Me" program with supervised care for the transition with Alvin. He warned that another separation could cause lasting harm to Alvin, who is likely to react more negatively to losing his foster parents than to being separated from Lela. Dr. Singer indicated that if Lela fails to comply with recommendations, termination of parental rights might be necessary to ensure Alvin's need for stability and permanency is met.
Dr. Iofin conducted a third evaluation of Lela to assess her capability as a minimally adequate parent for her child, Alvin. He acknowledged Lela's significant improvements in areas such as academics and reduced physical altercations, but expressed serious concerns regarding her ability to provide adequate care. Lela's counselor, who had engaged with her in approximately forty sessions, reported ongoing concerning behaviors, including teasing and harassing peers, indicating a lack of sensitivity to others' needs. This contradicted Lela's claims of improved self-control, as she continued to exhibit negative interactions with family.
Dr. Iofin highlighted troubling behaviors, such as Lela’s correspondence with an incarcerated man and possession of inappropriate media, reflecting her immaturity and frequent setbacks. He concluded that while there were various difficulties impairing her parenting abilities, there were no direct psychiatric contraindications for supervised interactions with Alvin, suggesting a structured program like "Mommy and Me." However, he stressed that Lela's issues needed clinical intervention, and he viewed termination of her parental rights as a more appropriate solution.
Despite positive feedback from her resource parent, Lela repeatedly violated curfews, jeopardizing her foster placement, and her academic performance was unsatisfactory, with most classes failed. The Division arranged for her to receive additional training at the Family Life Education Center. During a case management hearing, the Division considered reunification and a "Mommy and Me" program but maintained its plan for termination of parental rights. Alvin’s Law Guardian pushed for a permanent placement and for the guardianship case to proceed to trial. Shortly after, Lela was discharged from her therapeutic foster placement due to running away and returning to a previously rejected placement with her cousin.
Lela's actions led the Division to seek a trial regarding her custody of Alvin. Although visits between Lela and Alvin took place at a mall, Lela's in-home therapy had ended, and she had moved to live with her mother without the Division's approval. Lela disclosed her pregnancy, and Dr. Singer's assessment indicated her desire to care for her son but concluded she was not capable of independent parenting. He noted her awareness of needing significant support but expressed doubt about her ability to maintain stability for herself or her child, suggesting she was unlikely to be a viable parenting option in the near future.
The Law Guardian requested updated psychological and bonding evaluations. Dr. Johnson, who assessed Lela, noted her tendency to underestimate challenges and overestimate her capabilities. She criticized Lela for failing to comply with requirements and for prioritizing her immediate comfort over her responsibilities as a mother. While Lela had a bond with Alvin, it was described as insecure, and he had a strong bond with his foster parents. Dr. Johnson concluded that placing Alvin with Lela would not be in his best interest at that time and recommended adoption by the resource parents.
During the one-day trial on June 27, 2011, Lela, nearing 18, had no objections to the introduction of the Division's evidence, which included case files and evaluations. Testimony from case worker Damion Johnson revealed that Lela's progress was inconsistent, hindering potential reunification. He highlighted her lack of consideration for Alvin’s feelings and the impact of her actions on him. The Division aimed for Alvin’s permanency through adoption by his foster parents, and Johnson explained efforts to find a facility for Lela that would allow for a "Mommy, Me" placement, but noted that all programs required simultaneous entry for both mother and child.
Dr. Singer, an expert for the Division, testified about Lela’s psychological assessments and bonding evaluations, concluding that Lela's behavior had not improved regarding stability. He noted that despite some signs of a bonded relationship with Alvin, Lela often left when uncomfortable, and there was an absence of affectionate interactions. Dr. Singer expressed concern that terminating Lela's parental rights would negatively impact Alvin, although his bond with his resource parents was stronger, which would help mitigate the effects. He highlighted the potential long-term impact of losing his foster parents, whom he viewed as his psychological parents, and pointed out Lela's struggle to meet Alvin's needs due to her focus on her newborn.
Lela testified that she was about to graduate high school, had secured summer employment, and was accepted into a program that could accommodate Alvin. She expressed a desire to reunite with him while acknowledging his need for contact with his resource parents. Lela described her discomfort in a previous foster placement, which contributed to her decision to leave and move in with her cousin.
Dr. Johnson, the Law Guardian’s expert, provided further analysis of Lela and the bonding evaluations. After summations, the trial judge issued an oral opinion, stating that Lela was unprepared to care for Alvin at his birth and had not created a stable environment since. He noted her questionable decisions had disrupted her placements and emphasized that Lela needed to attain a higher level of maturity. The judge concluded that Lela's recent choices reflected instability and that introducing Alvin into her situation would be unmanageable. He acknowledged Lela's compliance with services but highlighted her lack of success. Ultimately, the judge determined that Alvin required permanency, and further delays would not be in his best interests.
Expert testimony indicated that Alvin’s strong bond with his resource parents meant that his removal would likely cause severe emotional harm, which Lela would be unable to mitigate due to her current instability. However, the resource parents could help alleviate any distress from severing Alvin's ties with Lela, as they could maintain some form of relationship. The trial judge determined that the Division had proven each element of the statutory test for terminating parental rights by clear and convincing evidence, leading to the order for Lela's parental rights to be terminated and Alvin placed in the Division’s custody for adoption. Lela is appealing the judgment entered on June 27, 2011. The appellate review will adhere to established guidelines, recognizing that the trial court's factual findings are binding if supported by substantial and credible evidence, particularly given the family court's specialized jurisdiction. Reversal of a trial court's findings is only justified if they are found to be significantly erroneous or lacking in support from credible evidence, as emphasized in various precedents. The scope of appellate review is thus limited, focusing on whether the trial court's conclusions offend the interests of justice.
Deference is given to trial judges' credibility determinations due to their unique position to assess witness credibility firsthand. Appellate courts must respect the trial court's conclusions regarding witness credibility unless they lack reasonable support. If there is sufficient evidentiary basis for the trial court's findings, appellate courts should refrain from altering the outcome, even if they might have reached a different conclusion. When evaluating alleged errors in the trial judge’s factual assessments, the scope of review may widen, but legal conclusions drawn from these facts are subject to plenary review. Parents possess a constitutional right to raise their biological children, protected by both Federal and State Constitutions, which uphold the family unit's integrity. Nonetheless, the state has constitutional authority to intervene in parental discretion when a child's health is at risk. The New Jersey Legislature emphasizes the significance of family integrity while prioritizing the health and safety of children, allowing courts to consider whether to maintain or sever the parent-child relationship in the child's best interest.
Termination of parental rights permanently severs the relationship between children and their biological parents, representing a severe and irreversible form of state action. The standard for evaluating such terminations is the best interests of the child, which requires the State to meet four prongs by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the child's safety, health, or development is endangered by the parental relationship; (2) the parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm or provide a safe home, and delaying permanent placement would exacerbate the harm; (3) the State has made reasonable efforts to assist the parent in correcting the issues leading to the child's placement outside the home, while the court has considered alternatives to termination; and (4) termination will not cause greater harm than good. These factors are interrelated and must provide a comprehensive view of what is necessary to protect the child's best interests. The evaluation process is highly fact-sensitive, requiring specific evidence regarding the individual case. When a parent contests termination, the inquiry focuses on whether the parent can cease causing harm and become fit for the parental role in time to meet the child's needs. The State bears the burden to prove, through strict standards, that the risk of serious future harm to the child justifies severing parental ties. On appeal, Lela contends that the Division did not adequately establish each of the four prongs with clear and convincing evidence.
Lela asserts that she never endangered her son Alvin and that no lasting harm exists. She argues that her efforts to improve her situation demonstrate her capability to eliminate perceived harm. Lela disputes the Division's claim of fulfilling its service obligations, specifically mentioning its failure to secure a second "Mommy. Me" placement. She also contests the idea that terminating her parental rights would harm Alvin less than keeping them intact.
Under the best interests standard, the Division must provide clear and convincing evidence that the parental relationship endangers the child's safety, health, or development (N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a(1)). Harm must threaten the child's health and likely have enduring negative effects. Alvin was removed from Lela’s custody at birth because she was a minor in the Division’s care, not because of any affirmative harm she caused. However, the absence of physical abuse or neglect does not preclude the possibility of psychological harm, which can justify the termination of parental rights (AW, 103 N.J. at 605).
The court must consider the potential psychological damage from reunification, as returning a child to a potentially harmful parent may not be in the child's best interest. Lela experienced significant trauma as a child, which manifested in behaviors that were inappropriate and harmful. She acknowledged her lack of readiness to care for Alvin at his birth but claims the Division failed to demonstrate that Alvin was harmed in her care and that her youth does not justify the presence of harm.
The court recognizes that a parent's age alone does not determine their ability to provide adequate care or avoid harm. Nevertheless, Lela's impulsivity and poor judgment compromised Alvin's safety. Her aggressive behaviors persisted for over a year after Alvin's birth, negatively impacting her participation in the "Mommy. Me" program and her relationships with family support systems.
Lela failed to fulfill her responsibilities as a parent and student, engaging in disruptive behavior such as assaulting others, disobeying authority, and running away. Despite not resorting to substance abuse, she struggled to prioritize her son Alvin's needs after his birth. The Division's decision to remove Alvin was not solely based on Lela's age at childbirth but on her inability to demonstrate appropriate parenting skills, which posed a risk to Alvin's safety. Lela exhibited symptoms of mental illness, including hallucinations and impulse control issues, and failed to consistently adhere to prescribed treatment. By September 2009, she dismissed her previous mental health evaluations, raising concerns about her awareness and seriousness regarding her parenting capabilities. The Division is permitted to act to protect a child without waiting for actual harm to occur, as supported by N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a(1). The trial court found sufficient evidence of Lela's unfitness as a parent, emphasizing the need to assess not only her current fitness but also the likelihood of her becoming fit in the future. The court determined it was not reasonably foreseeable that Lela could stop posing a risk to Alvin's well-being.
The Division must demonstrate that harm to the child persists due to the parent's inability or unwillingness to rectify the situation, as established in N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.P. The assessment includes signs of parental irresponsibility, such as the inability to provide a stable and protective environment. Key considerations involve whether delays in permanency may exacerbate harm and the emotional impact of separating the child from resource parents. The principle that children should not remain indefinitely in foster care while a birth parent works to correct problems is emphasized, favoring prompt, permanent placements over prolonged reunification efforts.
In the case of Lela, who began to recognize her responsibilities towards her son Alvin in late 2009, she showed progress through counseling, improved conduct, and parenting skills development. Despite these strides, the focus must remain on Alvin's needs. The Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 underscores the importance of swift, permanent placements to ensure child well-being, discouraging indefinite limbo for children based on uncertain reunification outcomes.
Evaluations indicated that Lela struggled to prioritize Alvin’s needs, posing a risk if she were to regain custody. During trial, Dr. Singer noted Lela's lack of stability and consistency, highlighted by her choice to leave a therapeutic foster home to live with a cousin, despite knowing the cousin’s criminal history made her an unsuitable guardian for Alvin.
Lela's recent actions, including moving to her mother’s home after a disagreement with her cousin, violate the Division’s guidance regarding her son Alvin's care. Dr. Singer characterized these impulsive decisions as regression, emphasizing that Lela's ongoing instability hinders her ability to provide a stable home for Alvin, with little expectation for improvement. He noted that her current pregnancy complicates matters further, as Lela lacks the necessary emotional and physical resources to care for both a three-year-old and a newborn. Dr. Johnson corroborated Dr. Singer's assessment, pointing out Lela's community instability and inability to adhere to guidelines, which obstructs reunification efforts. Following her departure from a therapeutic foster home, Lela has failed to establish a stable environment and does not take responsibility for her actions, indicating a likelihood of repeating past mistakes. Although Lela expresses a desire to raise Alvin, her lack of a stable plan and impulsive decision-making undermine her ability to provide the consistency and permanence that the child needs. Her proposed moves and programs appear poorly planned, lacking consideration for the impact on Alvin and failing to maintain crucial connections with his resource parents. Overall, both experts agree that Lela has not achieved the stability necessary to ensure a secure upbringing for her son.
Lela acknowledged her inability to independently care for her son, Alvin, necessitating the support of a "Mommy. Me" program and financial assistance from the State. However, she has not shown the internal discipline required to adhere to such a structured program. Evidence indicates Lela's past behavior as a predictor of her future parenting capabilities, demonstrating her ongoing instability and inability to provide a safe environment for Alvin, despite three years of efforts to improve her circumstances. The trial court concluded that the Division had met its burden of proof regarding Lela's inadequate parenting, as any potential reunification posed risks to Alvin's well-being.
Lela's argument that the trial court's assessment reflected a biased value judgment regarding her parenting compared to that of the foster parents was dismissed. The Division had a responsibility to make reasonable efforts to assist Lela in correcting the issues that led to Alvin's placement in foster care, as mandated by N.J.S.A 30:4C-15.1a(3). These efforts must focus on reunification, involving services such as consultation, planning, and facilitating visitation. However, the effectiveness of these efforts is not solely based on their success, but also on the parent's active participation in the process. The court emphasized that continued attempts at reunification were unwarranted given the current circumstances.
The Division's unsuccessful attempts to reunify children with their families do not negate its fulfillment of statutory obligations regarding family reunification. Even if the Division's services to a parent are deemed inadequate, this does not automatically warrant reversing a termination of parental rights; the child's best interests remain the primary consideration. The court must evaluate alternatives to termination, including relative placements that could prevent the need for such action, as outlined in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a(3).
In cases where a child-parent, such as Lela, is in the Division's custody at the birth of another child (Alvin), the Division has a heightened responsibility to continue reunification efforts. This responsibility includes providing services that foster the young parent’s development and parenting skills. A careful balance must be maintained between the young parent’s abilities and the infant's need for stability within a reasonable timeframe. There is no fixed duration for the Division’s efforts, making it a fact-sensitive inquiry, which may require extending services beyond the typical twelve-month period mandated by N.J.S.A. 30:4C-61.2a(2) and N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.54(b).
The Division's focus shifted to equipping Lela to care for Alvin after reunification with her mother was no longer feasible. The extensive services provided by the Division from May 2007 to May 2011 included assistance in various areas such as medical, educational, and psychological support, alongside parenting education and life skills training, emphasizing the importance of understanding maternal responsibilities beyond basic caregiving tasks.
Services continued for Lela, focused on her healing and her son’s well-being, despite setbacks. The Division successfully met the heightened burden due to Lela's custodial status and her youth while striving for reunification. The trial judge found no flaws in the Division's reasonable efforts. Lela claimed she complied with all services but insisted on a missed opportunity for a “Mommy. Me” program, criticizing the Division’s inadequate attempts to secure such a program in 2010. However, Caseworker Johnson indicated that funding and expert recommendations hindered this effort, as both Lela and her son Alvin needed to enter the program together, while expert advice suggested transitioning Alvin after Lela proved her ability to comply with the program.
Lela's decision to leave her placement for her cousin's home, despite having matured over the three years before trial, demonstrated a lack of full compliance with the Division's services. Her choices often prioritized her interests over Alvin’s welfare, undermining her stability and security necessary for parenting. The Division's choice to pursue termination of parental rights was justified, focusing on Alvin’s need for safety and permanency. The Division's efforts for reunification were deemed reasonable, and the decision not to modify the permanency plan for another chance at a “Mommy. Me” program was supported by evidence suggesting low potential for success.
Under the best interests standard, it must be shown that terminating parental rights would not harm the child more than disrupting his relationship with a resource family. The primary concern remains the child's need for stability. If the child can safely return home, reunification is prioritized; however, if the child has formed a strong bond with resource parents, termination of parental rights may be justified.
The Division must demonstrate that separating the child from foster parents would cause serious emotional or psychological harm, supported by testimony from a qualified expert who has conducted a thorough evaluation of the child's relationships. Lela acknowledges that Alvin has a stronger bond with his resource parents but contends that her own bond with him is significant and that expert recommendations favored reunification. However, prior expert assessments overwhelmingly advised against Lela independently parenting Alvin. Reports from Dr. Trott and Dr. Iofin indicated that Lela should not visit her child unsupervised and deemed her an unsuitable candidate for reunification due to her instability and difficulties in parenting. Dr. Singer recognized the potential for improvement with structured intervention but did not recommend reunification without supervision and cautioned that another failed placement could result in enduring harm to Alvin. His later evaluations reinforced the need for consistency and stability in Alvin’s life, supporting the Division’s plan to terminate Lela’s parental rights since she could not provide a secure environment for her son. Dr. Johnson acknowledged an emotional connection between Lela and Alvin, though it was described as tenuous and marked by confrontational dynamics.
Dr. Johnson assessed the relationship between Alvin and Lela as “insecure,” recommending the termination of Lela's parental rights for Alvin's best interests. She noted that removing him from his long-term home would be traumatic, while he shares a strong and positive bond with his foster parents, who could alleviate any emotional harm from severing ties with Lela. The trial judge supported the expert testimonies, which indicated that separation from the foster parents could lead to significant and lasting emotional damage, citing precedent that termination of parental rights may be justified to prevent psychological harm. Although Alvin has a relationship with Lela, the anticipated harm from severing this connection would be manageable due to the support from his resource parents. The trial court concluded that delaying the establishment of a stable home for Alvin, who has been in foster care for over four years, would exacerbate his situation. The court's findings were backed by clear and convincing evidence, affirming that Alvin's need for a permanent, safe home outweighs Lela's wishes for reunification. The Governor signed legislation on June 29, 2012, reorganizing the Department of Children and Families, which included renaming the Division to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. Additionally, Alvin's father's parental rights were also terminated, and he did not appeal this decision. A minor error regarding the town name was noted in the transcript.
