NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. C.L.
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5908-04T45908-04T4
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
C.L.,
Defendant-Appellant,
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF J.L., P.L., M.L., D.H. AND S.H.,
Minors.
______________________________________
A-6558-04T4
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
D.L.H.,
Defendant-Appellant,
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF J.L., D.H., P.L., S.H., AND M.L.,
Minors.
_______________________________________
Submitted February 16, 2006 - Decided March 31, 2006
Before Judges Wefing, Wecker and Fuentes.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division - Family Part, Cumberland
County, No. FG-06-16-05.
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant C.L. (Mark Tabakman, Designated
Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant D.L.H. (Alan I. Smith, Designated
Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minor child-respondents
(Olivia Belfatto Crisp, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Serena C. Robinson,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
C.L. is the biological mother of five children, James, born August 26, 1994; Patricia, born July 7, 1995; Matthew, born November 29, 1997; David, born August 13, 2002; and Steven, born October 1, 2003. D.H. is the biological father of two of these children, David and Steven. C.L. was married to R.L., who is the biological father of James, Patricia and Matthew. R.L. has voluntarily surrendered his parental rights. C.L. and D.H. appeal from a trial court judgment terminating their parental rights. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
We do not find it necessary to restate within the body of this opinion the cycle of domestic violence and chaos to which these children have been exposed and from which they have suffered. Their parents have failed to protect them and to offer them the psychological and physical stability to which they were entitled, resulting in the children's significant behavioral problems. The children now reside with foster parents, Patricia, Matthew, David and Steven with one foster family, and James with a foster father. All of the children have done well with these placements, and DYFS's goal is foster family adoption.
Dr. Linda Jeffrey, Ph.D., testified on behalf of DYFS. In her opinion, the three older children, James, Patricia and Matthew, had an uncertain attachment to C.L. and D.H., and the two younger children, David and Steven, no attachment at all. Dr. Jeffrey testified that in her opinion, it was "highly unlikely" that the children would experience significant and enduring harm if the parental rights of C.L. and D.H. were terminated. On the other hand, it was also her opinion that all five children had formed a clear attachment to their foster parents and would suffer harm if that bond were broken. It was also Dr. Jeffrey's opinion that C.L. and D.H. lacked the capacity to parent these children and would remain so incapacitated for the succeeding months.
The relationship between parent and child is fundamental and constitutionally protected. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1394, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 606 (1982); In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 346-47 (1999). It is not, however, absolute. We have carefully scrutinized the record in this matter, and we are satisfied that the judgment under review should be affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Julio Mendez in his thorough written opinion dated June 16, 2005.
Affirmed.
We have used fictitious names for ease of understanding.
(continued)
(continued)
4
A-5908-04T4
RECORD IMPOUNDED
March 31, 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.