DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. D.F.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3484-05T43484-05T4

DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY

SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

D.F.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF Z.K.B., A Minor.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted September 20, 2006 - Decided October 12, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Sabatino.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Cumberland County,

FG-06-32-05.

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

Anne Milgram, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Angela N. Domen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law Guardian,

on behalf of Z.K.B. (Scott I. Fegley, Designated

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

There appearing more than sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial judge, the judgment of January 26, 2006, placing Z.K.B. in the "care, custody and control" of the Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS") to "act fully and completely as [his] guardian" with authority "to consent to [his adoption]" and terminating defendant's parental rights, is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the thorough written opinion of Judge Julio L. Mendez filed that day. We add only the following:

The record develops defendant's history of substance abuse and numerous convictions and incarcerations as well as the special needs of Z.K.B. who was born in September 2000, has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair. In this regard, we note the expert opinion of Dr. Linda Jeffrey who "performed a psychological evaluation of [defendant] and a bonding evaluation of [defendant] and Z.K.B." During the latter assessment, Z.K.B. "repeatedly and consistently indicated that he wanted to . . . leave [defendant]" with whom he "initiate[d]" no "affection." According to Dr. Jeffrey, defendant did not have the "the knowledge, stability or skill necessary" for Z.K.B.'s "intensified child care responsibilities . . . " Z.K.B. "would be at significant . . . risk of harm if placed in the care of" defendant, and the termination of her parental rights would not "cause him significant and enduring harm."

Moreover, according to Dr. Jeffrey, even if defendant were to remain drug free, it would take "at least two years to make significant change in the way that she interacts with other people . . . [and be] able to have her own emotional life develop to the point where she can be attuned to the needs of another," and before she could "establish a household that would be secure and stable."

We recognize, as did the trial judge, that Z.K.B.'s foster parents do not seek to adopt him and that no bonding evaluation was performed with them. However, Z.K.B. is now six years old and, independent of the care and stability which flows from living with the foster family since December, 2003, he has not seen or interacted with his mother since then, when she left her children with the father of her youngest child after having been arrested on new charges and in anticipation of "going back to prison." Accordingly, we cannot disagree the Judge Mendez's finding that Z.K.B. would suffer more harm by being returned to his mother than remaining with the foster parents in anticipation of adoption. See, e.g., In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440, 472 (2002) (noting our limited scope of review). A properly supervised transfer to an adoptive home, with the caring involvement of the foster parents, would be in Z.K.B.'s best interests.

Affirmed.

 

The opinion is undated, but during his oral summary of the opinion, the judge said the written opinion "is being handed out to all of you for your review." After counsel stated they had nothing to add in the matter, the judge further stated he would "file the decision, dated today."

Defendant presented no expert testimony.

The father and defendant also had a fight, and when she left

he called DYFS and said he could not take care of the three children in addition to his own. In June 2004 defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years, and in November 2004, she was sentenced to an additional concurrent term of five years.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3484-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

 

October 12, 2006