## Facts

- DYFS intervened after P.P. (mother) and S.P. (father) were unable to parent their two minor daughters due to serious substance-abuse problems and instability.
- DYFS provided services, including substance-abuse treatment and parenting-related assistance, and later sought termination of parental rights.
- The older child lived essentially since birth with her paternal grandmother; the younger child lived with her maternal grandmother.
- At the time of the initial trial, both grandmothers indicated willingness to adopt.
- The trial court terminated both parents’ rights to both children and did not order a kinship legal guardianship evaluation, reasoning that adoption was feasible and appropriate.
- During later proceedings, updated evaluations continued to show the parents remained unfit, but the paternal grandmother began to waver on adoption, and evidence indicated the older child had a meaningful bond with her parents.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court must consider kinship legal guardianship in every termination-of-parental-rights case involving relative caregivers.
2. Whether the trial court erred by terminating parental rights without first ordering or considering a kinship legal guardianship evaluation.
3. How the Kinship Legal Guardianship Act operates within the “best interests of the child” termination standard under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in part and modified the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held kinship legal guardianship is not a required alternative in every termination case involving relatives; it becomes relevant when adoption is not feasible or likely.
- The court held the trial court did not commit per se error by not ordering a kinship-guardianship evaluation at the outset where adoption appeared feasible and likely.
- On remand, the trial court was directed to reassess permanency for the older child in light of updated evidence bearing on adoption feasibility and the child’s attachments, and to consider kinship legal guardianship if adoption was no longer clearly feasible or in the child’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing proof of the four statutory “best interests” prongs under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), including reasonable agency efforts and judicial consideration of alternatives to termination.
- Adoption is the preferred permanency plan when it is feasible, likely, and consistent with the child’s best interests.
- Kinship legal guardianship is a permanent placement option for children who cannot safely return home when adoption is neither feasible nor likely; it does not require termination of parental rights.
- A court need not order a kinship legal guardianship evaluation merely because a child is placed with relatives; the evaluation is warranted when the record indicates adoption may not occur or may not serve the child’s best interests.
- The “no more harm than good” prong requires careful, child-specific consideration of bonding and potential emotional harm from severing parental ties, and may support different permanency outcomes for siblings when their circumstances materially differ.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that kinship legal guardianship is a secondary permanency option triggered when adoption is not feasible or likely, and that a trial court does not err by proceeding toward termination and adoption without a kinship-guardianship evaluation when adoption appears available; however, changed circumstances affecting adoption feasibility and the child’s attachments require a renewed best-interests analysis on remand.


N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. P.P., 852 A.2d 1093 (N.J. 2004)