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

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0517-05T40517-05T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF

YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

P.D.,

Defendant-Appellant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF C.E.D.,

A Minor.

_______________________________________________________

 

Submitted May 2, 2006 - Decided May 11, 2006

Before Judges Coburn and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County,

FG-09-237-05.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Michael C. Kazer, Designated Counsel,

on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Lisa N. Brown,

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law Guardian

for the minor child (Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

P.D., the father of C.E.D., appeals from an order terminating his parental rights. We affirm.

We will briefly summarize the critical facts. C.E.D. was born on March 18, 2003. DYFS became involved the next day because both C.E.D., who was classified as medically fragile, and her mother, S.R.J., tested positive for cocaine and opiates. On May 7, 2003, C.E.D. was discharged from the hospital and placed in the care of a specially trained SHPS foster mother, with whom she has resided ever since. S.R.J. is not asserting her parental rights.

P.D., who was never married to S.R.J., has a fairly extensive criminal record. In September 2004, he was sentenced to State Prison for five years subject to NERA, and he will not be released from prison until 2008. Although he complied with some of the instructions he received from DYFS, he failed to comply with others, including drug testing. The expert testimony was in conflict, but the evidence presented by DYFS strongly supports the inferences drawn by the trial judge with respect to P.D.'s inability to parent and with respect to the profound bond already developed between C.E.D. and his foster parent.

On appeal, P.D. offers the following arguments:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL.

POINT II

THE JUDGMENT OF GUARDIANSHIP TERMINATING THE DEFENDANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS TO C.E.D. SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE DIVISION FAILED TO PROVE THE THIRD AND FOURTH PRONGS OF THE "BEST INTERESTS" TEST BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

(A)

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DEFENDANT'S INCARCERATION RELIEVED THE DIVISION OF ITS "REASONABLE EFFORTS" OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE THIRD PRONG.

(B)

IN FINDING THAT TERMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD NOT DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD, THE TRIAL COURT MISAPPLIED THE LAW AND RELIED ON AN IMPROPER NET OPINION BY DR. DYER.

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of the Public Defender's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Davis in her thorough and well-reasoned oral opinion delivered on August 31, 2005.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-0517-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

May 11, 2006