NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. F.L.
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2201-05T42201-05T4
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
F.L.,
Defendant-Appellant.
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF J.O.,
A Minor.
_______________________________________
Submitted May 17, 2006 and
Argued June 6, 2006 - Decided June 21, 2006
Before Judges Wefing, Fuentes and Graves.
On appeal from Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Hudson County, Docket No. FG-09-0255-05.
Frank C. Babcock argued the cause for
appellant.
Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney
General, argued the cause for respondent
(Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney;
Ms. Silkowitz, of counsel and on the brief).
Nancy E. Scott, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, Law Guardian for the minor, argued the
cause for J.O. (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public
Defender, attorney; Ms. Scott on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant F.L. is the mother of 30-month-old J.O. The child was taken to the hospital when she was just three months old due to abdominal pain and frequent vomiting. She underwent emergency surgery to repair a perforated intestine and intra-abdominal bruising of the intestine. Several ribs had also been fractured. Radiological studies performed by the Palisade Medical Center and Hackensack University Hospital indicated that the rib fractures may have occurred approximately two weeks prior to her admission to the emergency room. Other rib injuries were consistent with earlier trauma.
F.L. and the child's biological father executed a voluntary temporary agreement placing the child in the custody of the Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS" or "Division"). A follow-up DYFS investigation was inconclusive as to how the child was injured, and who may have actually caused the injuries. The Division concluded, however, that defendant and the child's father were ultimately responsible for inattentiveness and general lack of urgency as to the child's life-threatening condition.
Armed with this information, DYFS filed a verified complaint in the Family Part requesting that J.O. be placed in the Division's custody. Judge Bovino granted DYFS's application, finding that the child had sustained serious non-accidental bodily injuries while in the primary care of F.L. The child was placed in a foster home pending the outcome of court-ordered services to the parents.
During the time J.O. was in foster care, both parents participated in DYFS-sponsored parenting classes and counseling. F.L. also faithfully visited J.O. under DYFS's supervision. DYFS also investigated and ruled out placing the child with other members of defendant's family, including the maternal grandmother and F.L.'s sister-in-law.
Judge Bovino conducted a three-day trial in which the Division's case worker and both biological parents testified. The Court also considered psychological evaluations performed on F.L. by both DYFS and by Dr. Antonio W. Burr, a defense psychologist. In his oral opinion delivered from the bench on November 4, 2005, Judge Bovino considered all of the evidence adduced at trial including the testimony of Dr. Charles Hasson who conducted a bonding evaluation of the child with both her foster and biological family.
Judge Bovino's decision tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1, in accordance with In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 348 (1999), and In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365, 384 (1999), and is supported by the record. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Therefore, his factual findings "'should not be disturbed unless they are so wholly unsupportable 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)
4
A-2201-05T4
RECORD IMPOUNDED
June 21, 2006
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.