Dcpp v. C.O. and H.G., in the Matter of the Guardianship of I.G.

── Dcpp v. C.O. and H.G., in the Matter of the Guardianship of I.G. ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3011-24 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. C.O., Defendant, and H.G., Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF I.G., a minor. ___________________________ Submitted February 24, 2026 – Decided May 21, 2026 Before Judges Susswein and Chase.  On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-0038-25. Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (John A. Albright, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs). Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lakshmi R. Barot, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Neha Gogate, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs). PER CURIAM Defendant H.G.1 appeals the May 7, 2025, Family Part order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, I.G. 2 The trial court found that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) proved all four prongs of the statutory best-interests-of-the-child test by clear and convincing evidence. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by completing the guardianship 1 We use initials to protect the confidentiality of these proceedings. R. 1:38(3)(d). 2 The child's mother, C.O., does not appeal from the termination of her parental rights. A-3011-24 2 trial in his absence and constructively denied him effective assistance of counsel by refusing an adjournment request. Defendant also argues that the trial court's findings regarding the best interests test were unsupported by expert testimony or other substantial credible evidence in the record. After reviewing the record in light of the governing legal principles, we affirm. I. We discern the following pertinent facts and procedural history from the record. The Division first became involved in I.G.'s life in March 2020, when it received a referral from hospital staff that she had been born exposed to cocaine and heroin and was suffering withdrawal symptoms. In April 2020, the Division filed a complaint for custody. I.G. was initially placed in the care of a relative and then a resource parent, K.M. C.O., the child's mother, and defendant engaged in substance abuse treatment, and in December 2021, I.G. was reunified with C.O. (legal and physical custody) and defendant (legal custody, supervised visitation). On June 27, 2022, the Division again became involved with the family when C.O. relapsed, leaving I.G. with defendant. On July 13, 2022, the Division filed a complaint and order to show cause seeking to place I.G. under its care and supervision and to transfer physical custody to defendant, restricting C.O.'s