NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. D. H.

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4597-04T44597-04T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

D. H.,

Defendant-Appellant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF

K.A.C., K.K.C. & K.M.C.,

Minors.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted November 16, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Winkelstein and Sabatino.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Salem County, FG-17-18-04.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant D. H. (Michael C. Kazer, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Serena C. Robinson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law Guardian for the minor child K.K.C. (Lisa C. Castaneda, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant D.H., who is presently confined in State prison, appeals a guardianship order of the Family Part terminating his parental rights as to "K.K.C.", his eleven-year-old biological daughter.

We affirm the disposition below, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Johnson's comprehensive written opinion dated February 18, 2005. In doing so, we add a few observations.

The child who is the subject of this appeal, K.K.C., was born on September 24, 1994. By the time she was born, her father D.H. had been convicted of aggravated manslaughter. In July 1994, D.H. was sentenced to a thirty-year prison term with fifteen years of parole ineligibility. He may be considered for parole no sooner than January 2009, given credit for time served.

K.K.C.'s mother, K.L.C., has two other children. Unfortunately, K.L.C. proved unable to provide housing or otherwise care for K.K.C. or her two half-siblings, largely because of her own substance abuse.

As the result of a long history of Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) involvement with K.L.C. dating back to 1998, K.K.C. and the other two children were placed in the physical custody of their maternal grandmother in February 2000. The children resided with the maternal grandmother in California from August 2000 through March 2002. Sometime between March 2002 and August 2002 the maternal grandmother returned the children to K.L.C.'s custody. K.L.C. was soon thereafter arrested on drug charges, and she sent the children to the home of her sister. In March 2003, DYFS removed the children from their aunt's custody and placed them in foster care, where they have remained.

In her troubled life, K.K.C. has resided at times with various maternal relatives and in nineteen foster homes. For the past two years she has been living in a mental health group home. K.K.C. has severe behavioral problems. She frequently acts out and engages in biting and other antisocial conduct. She has attempted suicide. She possibly has been sexually abused.

Following a three-day trial, Judge Johnson terminated the parental rights of the mother, K.L.C., as well as the biological fathers of K.K.C. and her two half siblings. The Law Guardian for the children participated in the trial and endorsed that outcome. Only D.H. appeared to contest the termination proceedings. The judgments against K.L.C. and the other two biological fathers were not appealed.

As Judge Johnson noted, K.K.C. has not had a significant relationship with her incarcerated father during her eleven year life. Her first contact with D.H. was not until 2002, when she visited him in prison one or two times. They have not corresponded or maintained telephone contact.

Moreover, a psychological evaluation of D.H. presented at trial revealed, among other things, that he has psychological limitations, and presents as "hostile and suspicious." There was no competing favorable evaluation offering a more promising assessment of D.H.'s capacity to nurture this child.

Faced with this record, Judge Johnson's determination to terminate D.H.'s parental rights readily comported with the four-part statutory test of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). There is ample evidence that (1) K.K.C.'s safety, health or development will be endangered by the parental relationship; (2) D.H. is unable to provide a safe and stable home for K.K.C., and the delay of permanent placement will add to the harm; (3) DYFS has made reasonable efforts to provide services and has adequately considered alternatives to termination; and (4) termination of D.H.'s rights will not do more harm than good.

It is manifest that D.H.'s ongoing incarceration through at least 2009, when K.K.C. will be fifteen, is a substantial obstacle to the child achieving permanency, stability and security. D.H. proposed below that, pending his release from prison, K.K.C. could be cared for by his own brother, H.H. We defer to Judge Johnson's discretion in rejecting that suggestion, particularly in light of the fact that there were open abuse-and-neglect charges against H.H.'s live-in girlfriend and also considering the special behavioral challenges posed by K.K.C.

D.H. contends on appeal that DYFS did not provide him with adequate "services," specifically by failing to arrange supervised visits with his daughter at the prison. We disagree. The statute only requires that DYFS provide "reasonable" services. N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(c). We concur with Judge Johnson that mandating DYFS to arrange such supervised visits here, in light of the absence of a prior relationship between father and daughter and D.H.'s long and continuing term of confinement, would be unreasonable on this record.

 
Under the limited standard of review in guardianship matters, we do not find Judge Johnson's findings "wholly insupportable as to result in a denial of justice." In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440, 472 (2002) (quoting In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-4597-04T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

November 30, 2005

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.