NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. E.T.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5904-04T45904-04T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF

YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

E.T.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF A.T.,

A minor.

_____________________________________________

 

Submitted February 8, 2006 - Decided

Before Judges Conley and Weissbard.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,

Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-26-05.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant (Bernardo W. Henry,

Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Division of Youth and Family Services (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, and Alicia Y. Bergman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

The Law Guardian did not submit a brief.

PER CURIAM

E.T. appeals a June 27, 2005 order terminating her parental rights to A.T., a boy born on April 26, 2003, and granting guardianship and control of A.T. to plaintiff, the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). We affirm.

On July 23, 2004, DYFS filed its complaint and order to show cause seeking to terminate E.T.'s parental rights. At that time, A.T. had not been in his mother's custody since April 29, 2003, when she executed a fifteen-day consent for placement of A.T. with her paternal grandmother. That placement did not work out, and on May 19, 2003, DYFS sought and was granted legal and physical custody. A.T., although born healthy, had remained in the hospital since his birth. E.T. had been discharged from the hospital and returned to the Essex County Youth House where she had been in custody before her labor, pursuant to a February 27, 2003 arrest. A.T. was finally placed in a foster home on July 7, 2003.

A trial was held before Presiding Family Part Judge Glenn A. Grant on June 10 and 17, 2005. On the latter date, the judge filed a detailed and comprehensive twenty-four page written opinion which he summarized on the record that same day. In that decision, the judge carefully evaluated the proofs under the four-part test first set out in New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 604-610 (1986), and later codified in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). Having done so, he concluded as follows:

[T]his court finds that the Division has proven by clear and convincing evidence each of the four prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) as it relates to the termination of the defendant's parental rights.

[A.T.] has been harmed by his interaction with his mother and [E.T.] has not demonstrated the kind of stability and competency necessary to parent her son. The delay in that permanency represents a continuing risk of harm if [A.T.] was returned to her care. The court agrees with the opinion of Dr. Williams that [A.T.] is significantly and positively bonded with his foster parent. Equally compelling, the court finds [A.T.] has no important relationship with his mother and will not suffer if permanently separated from her. [A.T.]'s best interest cannot be based upon speculative assumptions as to whether [E.T.] has addressed housing, employment and her mental health issues, but rather on the safety and security of his current placement. The defendant has failed to come forward with a viable plan for the child. The child has no bond with his parent and is in a safe and loving environment with his foster parent to whom he is clearly attached.

Time from a child's perspective is a very precious commodity. [A.T.] has been in the care of his foster parent all of his life. He should be afforded the opportunity to permanently formalize his relationship with his psychological parent. In balancing the interest of the parent versus that of the child our courts are required to recognize the primacy of the best interests of the child in such an equation. It is without question that it is in the best interest of [A.T.] that his mother's parental rights are terminated, and he be freed for adoption by his foster parent.

The court also finds that the identity of [A.T.]'s father is unknown and pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4C, the Order of Guardianship shall terminate the parental rights of [A.T.]'s father whomever that may be.

The court specifically notes that this conclusion is in accord with the recommendation of the Law Guardian for the child.

On appeal, E.T. presents the following arguments:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT'S DETERMINATION OF THE ULTIMATE FINDINGS SHOULD BE REVIEWED DE NOVO AND THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.

A. The Trial Court Incorrectly Determined That E.T. Is Unable Or Unwilling To Eliminate The Harm Facing A.T. And Unwilling Or Unable To Provide A Safe And Stable Home For Her And That A Delay In Permanent Placement Will Add To The Harm.

B. The Trial Court Incorrectly Determined That The Division Had Made Reasonable Efforts To Reunify E.T. With A.T.

C. The Trial Court Incorrectly Determined That Termination Of Parental Rights Would Not Do More Harm Than Good.

Having carefully reviewed these contentions in light of the record and applicable law, we are unpersuaded. We see no need for a discussion of the facts or the law. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). We affirm substantially for the reasons articulately set out by Judge Grant in his June 27, 2005 decision.

 
Affirmed.

The briefs refer to the baby as A.T. However, it appears that he is correctly identified as Z.T. For sake of consistency, we will refer to him as A.T.

The order also terminated the rights of the biological father of A.T., whose identity was unknown.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-5904-04T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

March 2, 2006