IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF T.B. and S.N.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1175-04T41175-04T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF

YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

M.B.,

Defendant-Appellant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF T.B.

and S.N.,

Minors.

_________________________________

 

Submitted September 27, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,

Essex County, FG-07-121-03.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant M.B. (Alison Perrone,

Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Scott J. Kieserman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law

Guardian, attorney for minor-child respondents, T.B. and S.N. (Damen J. Thiel, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

After a bench trial, Judge Sivilli entered an Order, dated May 26, 2004, terminating the parental rights of defendant M.B. to her minor children T.B. and S.N. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

On this appeal defendant asserts that:

THE JUDGE'S DECISION TO TERMINATE DEFENDANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE REVERSED AS THE DIVISION FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN.

A. Not only did the Division fail to offer

meaningful services, such as job placement and housing assistance, but

the Division also failed to thoroughly

explore possible relative placements

before filing a Guardianship complaint.

B. Termination of parental rights will do

more harm than good particularly in light of the fact that neither of the children are residing in a preadoptive home.

The Order of Termination recited that Judge Sivilli

found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Division has met its burden of proof, and that all of the requirements for termination as set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1, and all of the requirements established by our Supreme Court in DYFS v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986) and expanded in In the Matter of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999) have been met . . . .

That conclusion was reached after a thorough and comprehensive review of the evidence in light of the applicable law. Defendant's claim that the judge's findings and conclusions lack evidential support do not merit discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) & (E).

Affirmed substantially for the reasons set out by Judge Sivilli in her May 26, 2004, oral opinion.

 

For purposes of this opinion, we are using

the initials of minors as T.B. and S.N. following

the names on the Order of Guardianship filed

May 26, 2004 although some documents show other

initials.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-1175-04T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

October 4, 2005