NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. W.M.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6407-04T56407-04T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

W.M.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF J.M., a Minor.

____________________________________

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH A-0001-05T4

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

K.G.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF J.M., a Minor.

______________________________________

 

Submitted January 19, 2006 - Decided April 28, 2006

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of

New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family

Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FG-09-236-05.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant W.M. in A-6407-04T4

(Michael Confusione, Designated Counsel,

of counsel and on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant K.G. in A-0001-05T4

(Jean B. Bennett, Designated Counsel and

on the brief).

Nancy Kaplen, Acting Attorney General, attorney

for respondent New Jersey Division of Youth and

Family Services in A-6407-04T4 and A-0001-05T4

(Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney

General, of counsel; Jessica Steinglass,

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

Law Guardian for minor J.M. in A-6407-04T4 and

A-0001-05T4 (Karen Kleppe Lembo, Designated

Counsel, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

These cases were submitted to us together and we consolidate them for purposes of this opinion. Defendants W.M. (father) and K.G. (mother), appeal from the judgment of the Family Part, terminating their parental rights to their two-year-old daughter J.M, and awarding legal guardianship of the child to the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). Both defendants argue that DYFS failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. W.M. furthers argues that the trial court erred by not requiring DYFS to pursue family placement, as an alternative to termination.

After reviewing the record in light of prevailing legal standards, we affirm. We will not recite the history that led to this appeal. We adopt and incorporate by reference, the factual findings made by Judge DeCastro in her memorandum opinion dated June 16, 2005. We briefly note, however, that the events that precipitated DYFS' involvement is emblematic of the dysfunction that has permeated defendants' lives.

On September 26, 2003, in response to an anonymous call, a DYFS representative found J.M. (then just 54 days old) hungry, crying, and generally uncared for. The infant was taken to the emergency room of the Jersey City Medical Center, where she was treated for diarrhea. Because DYFS was unable to find suitable placement for J.M. with any relative, the child was placed in emergency foster care. A DYFS representative finally interviewed K.G. three days later. Despite evidence to the contrary, K.G. denied that she and W.M. had a history of substance abuse, or that they were homeless.

J.M. is K.G's sixth child. None of the other children, ranging in age from three years old to ten years old, live with her. In fact, in an unrelated case, the Family Part terminated her parental rights to the six-year-old child. The remaining children are in various placement settings. Despite her inability to care for her children, K.G. had a seventh child on September 17, 2005. By order of the Court, this latest child is also under the care and supervision of DYFS.

Although W.M. has been the beneficiary of some family support, his pattern of dysfunctional behavior is equally disturbing. He has consistently failed to provide adequate housing for his daughter, and has repeatedly exposed the child to significant harm and neglect.

In her twenty-one page written decision, Judge DeCastro considered all of the evidence adduced at trial, including the testimony of Dr. Ernesto Perdomo, who evaluated both defendants. Judge DeCastro's decision tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1, in accordance with In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999), and In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999), and is supported by the record. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Therefore, her factual findings "'should not be disturbed unless they are so 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)).

 
We affirm substantially for the same reasons given by Judge DeCastro in her June 16, 2005, memorandum opinion.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-6407-04T54

RECORD IMPOUNDED

April 28, 2006