DCPP VS. R.L.M. AND J.J. IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF R.A.J.
A-2849-15T2/A-3277-15T2
In this termination of parental rights (TPR) case, the
father contends he was entitled to a new trial because he was
denied his constitutional right of self-representation, which he
argued is a corollary to the right to counsel under N.J. Div. of
Youth & Family Servs. v. B.R., 192 N.J. 301, 306 (2007). While
the constitutional right to procedural due process gives rise to
the right to counsel in TPR cases, there is no corollary right
of self-representation, unlike in criminal cases under the Sixth
Amendment. Furthermore, any non-constitutional right to proceed
pro se — under Rule 1:21-1(a) or arguably implied by N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.4(a) — may be relaxed if the court concludes that the
parent's pro se efforts would significantly undermine the
interests of the child, the State and the court in an accurate
result without undue delay. Also, any denial of such non-
constitutional right is not a structural error requiring a new
trial. Finally, the father did not assert his alleged right of
self-representation unequivocally or timely. 