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

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6773-04T46773-04T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

T.B.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF S.R.B AND T.D.B, minors.

_________________________________

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH

AND FAMILY SERVICES, DOCKET NO. A-6774-04T4

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

C.B.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF S.R.B. AND T.D.B, minors.

__________________________________

 

Submitted March 1, 2006 - Decided March 20, 2006

Before Judges Wefing, Wecker and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County,

Docket No. FG-20-31-05.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant T.B. (William J. Sweeney,

Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant C.B. (Michael C. Kazer, Designated

Counsel, on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent New Jersey Division of Youth

and Family Services (Andrea M. Silkowitz,

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;

Christian A. Arnold, Deputy Attorney General,

on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for minors S.R.B. and T.D.B. (Noel

C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

These cases were submitted to us together and we consolidate them for purposes of this opinion. Defendants T.B. (mother) and C.B. (father) are the biological parents of T.D.B. and S.R.B., twin girls born on July 14, 2003. Defendants appeal from the judgment of the Family Part terminating their parental rights to these children, based on the allegations made by the Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS") in its petition for guardianship.

Both defendants argue that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed because DFYS failed to prove the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. T.B. further argues that her due process rights were violated when the trial court permitted her attorney to appear via telephone on the final day of trial. After reviewing the record, and in light of prevailing legal standards, we reject these arguments and affirm.

We will briefly summarize the salient facts based on the evidence presented at trial. T.B. has a long history of involvement with DYFS, primarily driven by her chronic substance abuse problem dating back to 1996. Despite numerous attempts by DYFS to have T.B. participate in inpatient treatment programs, she has been unable to overcome the dysfunctional lifestyle associated with her addiction. In fact, both T.B. and her twin infant daughters tested positive for methadone two days after the babies' birth. The girls were also born prematurely and underweight, requiring special neonatal care. At the time of the twin girls' birth, T.B. was homeless. Once the twins were medically cleared, DYFS assumed legal custody of them. The girls have never resided with either of their parents.

C.B. was incarcerated at the time this matter came to trial before the Family Part. Prior to his incarceration, he did not respond to numerous attempts by DYFS to establish a schedule for contacts, in order to foster a meaningful relationship with his daughters. He has consistently maintained that he did not see any connection between T.B.'s drug addiction and her ability to care for her daughters. He is thus unable to protect his children from the potential harm posed by their mother's substance abuse problem.

In her oral opinion delivered from the bench on July 5, 2005, Judge Spatola considered all of the evidence adduced at trial, including the testimony of Dr. Leslie Williams, who conducted a bonding evaluation. Judge Spatola'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 (1999), and In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999), and is supported by the record. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Therefore, her 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)).

Finally, we will briefly address T.B.'s argument challenging Judge Spatola's decision to permit her defense counsel to appear via telephone on the last day of trial. Defense counsel was ill and requested that the court adjourn the trial, or permit her to appear from her home through a telephone hookup. Judge Spatola decided not to delay the completion of the trial.

A trial judge is vested with wide discretion to control the day-to-day activities of a trial. State v. Cusumano, 369 N.J. Super. 305, 311 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 181 N.J. 546 (2004). Judge Spatola's decision to permit defense counsel to appear via telephone was a reasonable exercise of that discretion, and did not impair T.B.'s defense against the charges brought by DYFS.

We affirm substantially for the same reasons given by Judge Spatola in her thorough and well-reasoned oral opinion.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-6773-04T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

March 20, 2006