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

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

A-3210-12T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH

AND FAMILY SERVICES,1

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

T.L.L. and D.S.,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF T.S.B.-L.

and D.A.M.,

Minors.

____________________________

October 29, 2013

Before Judges Fuentes, Simonelli and Fasciale.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FG-04-155-12.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant T.L.L. (A-3210-12T3) (Howard B. Tat, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant D.S. (A-3209-12T3) (Larry Leung, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief; Julie B. Christensen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant T.L.L. appeals from the February 21, 2013 judgment of guardianship, which terminated her parental rights to her daughters, T.S.B.-L., born in October 1998, and D.A.M., born in November 2005. Defendant D.S., the biological father of D.A.M., appeals from the same order.2 Defendants contend that plaintiff New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a by clear and convincing evidence.3 After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, and in light of prevailing legal standards and the arguments presented, we affirm.

We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendants. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge Edward McBride's February 21, 2013 written opinion. We add only the following comments.

We are satisfied that commencing with the Division's first contact with the family in November 2005, and continuing up to and including the start of trial in January 2013, the Division provided multiple opportunities for T.L.L. to reunify with her children, and address her drug addiction.4 None of these interventions proved successful.5

D.S. was never a placement option for D.A.M. due to his incarceration from July 2005 to June 2008, and from April 2010 to December 2012. He had minimal contact with his daughter while not incarcerated, and there was no evidence he had made any plans for the child's care or to maintain contact with her prior to his second incarceration. There also was no evidence of how he would provide for his child in the future.

Judge McBride carefully reviewed the evidence presented and thereafter concluded that the Division had met by clear and convincing evidence all of the legal requirements for a judgment of guardianship. His opinion tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a, accords with In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999), In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999), and N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986), and is supported by substantial and credible evidence in the record. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448-49 (2012). We affirm substantially for the reasons the judge expressed in his comprehensive and well-reasoned written opinion.

Affirmed.

1 On June 29, 2012, the Governor signed into law A-3101, which reorganizes the Department of Children and Families, which includes the renaming of the Division as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. L. 2012, c. 16, eff. June 29, 2012.

2 The judgment also terminated the parental rights of T.S.B.-L.'s biological father, S.M.D. S.M.D. executed a voluntary surrender of his parental rights on February 7, 2013, and is not involved in this appeal.

3 We reject D.S.'s additional contention that he was denied due process during a prior Title 9 matter. There was no adverse finding made against D.S. in that matter, and such a finding was not necessary for the Division to proceed with a Title 30 action to his terminate parental rights. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.P., 408 N.J. Super. 252, 259 (App. Div. 2009), certif. denied, 201 N.J. 153 (2010).

4 There were two failed reunifications between T.L.L. and the children during the course of the Division's involvement with the family due to T.L.L.'s relapses.

5 T.L.L. tested positive for drugs on both days of the trial.