NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. J.C.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0385-05T40385-05T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF

YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

J.C.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF

J.S. and J.C.C.,

Minors.

_________________________________________________

 

Submitted March 10, 2006 - Decided April 12, 2006

Before Judges Weissbard and Winkelstein.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County,

FG-13-76-05.

Yvonne Smith-Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Alan I. Smith, Designated Counsel,

of counsel and on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for

respondent Division of Youth and Family Services

(Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General,

of counsel; Durrell Wachtler Ciccia, Deputy

Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith-Segars, Public Defender, Law

Guardian for minors, J.S. and J.C.C. (Cynthia

McCulloch DiLeo, Assistant Deputy Public

Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant J.C. appeals from an order of July 25, 2005 terminating his parental rights to J.S. and J.C.C., his daughter and son, and awarding "guardianship, care, custody and control of the minor children" to plaintiff Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). Although the order also terminated the parental rights of M.S., the mother of the children, she has not appealed.

Trial was held before Judge Norman J. Peer on May 17 and May 19, 2005. On July 25, 2005, Judge Peer filed a comprehensive and articulate twenty-page written decision, finding the facts and concluding that DYFS had satisfied, by clear and convincing evidence, the four statutory requirements. N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a; see D.Y.F.S. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986); see also In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999).

On appeal defendant makes the following arguments:

POINT I

THE JUDGMENT OF GUARDIANSHIP TERMINATING THE DEFENDANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE DIVISION FAILED TO CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY PROVE THE THIRD AND FOURTH PRONGS OF THE BEST INTERESTS TEST.

A. THERE DID NOT EXIST CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE THIRD PRONG.

1. THE DIVISION DID NOT MAKE "REASONABLE EFFORTS" TO PROVIDE REUNIFICATION SERVICES TO THE DEFENDANT.

2. WITH REGARD TO THE CURRENT PLACEMENT OF J.C.C. WITH HIS PATERNAL AUNT, E.C., THE DIVISION FAILED TO CONSIDER KINSHIP LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.

B. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD BECAUSE THE SIBLING RIGHTS OF J.C.C. AND J.S. WOULD BE SEVERED.

Having carefully considered defendant's contentions in light of the record and applicable law, we find them without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). We affirm substantially for the reasons well-expressed by Judge Peer in his written opinion.

 
Affirmed.

We note that the children's attorney has filed a brief supporting the termination order.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0385-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

April 12, 2006