Defendant R.B. appeals the Family Part order terminating his parental rights to his then seven-year-old son H.N.B. The parental rights of HNB's mother, A.M.W., were terminated by default, which she does not appeal.
R.B. contends the trial judge improperly advocated for the Division when questioning him and a DCPP caseworker, and by objecting to questions posed by his counsel. R.B. argues the trial judge denied him due process by taking judicial notice of factual findings the judge made in a prior guardianship trial two years earlier. The judge had rejected the Division of Child Protection and Permanency's (Division) parental termination plan because there was no permanent placement for H.N.B. In addition, R.B. contends the Division failed to prove the four prongs of the best interests of the child test necessary to terminate his parental rights.
The court concludes R.B.'s due process rights were violated because the trial judge failed to impartially conduct the trial by interfering with the presentation of evidence and relied upon his recollection of his findings from the prior guardianship trial. The court further concludes R.B.'s due process rights were violated when the judge granted the Division's request to take judicial notice of factual findings made at the prior guardianship trial over his and the Law Guardian's objections because neither defense counsel nor the Law Guardian had represented their respective clients at the prior guardianship trial. The court thus reverses the order terminating R.B.'s parental rights and remands for a new guardianship trial. Consequently, the court does not address R.B.'s best interests arguments.