NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. R.P.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

R.P.,

Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF J.C.P., a minor.

___________________________________

January 2, 2014

Submitted December 11, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Fuentes, Fasciale and Haas.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FG-04-114-12.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alan I. Smith, 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).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for J.C.P., a minor (Linda Vele Alexander, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant R.P., the biological father of J.C.P., born in 2009, appeals from a June 4, 2013 judgment of guardianship, which terminated his parental rights to the child.1 Defendant contends that the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the "Division") failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a by clear and convincing evidence. After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, and in light of prevailing legal standards and arguments presented, we affirm.

We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendant. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge Linda Baxter's thorough oral decision. We add the following brief comments.

We are satisfied that, commencing with the Division's involvement with defendant in November 2010, and continuing up to and including the commencement of the trial two years and seven months later, defendant was unable or unwilling to overcome the deficiencies that rendered him unable to safely parent the child. The Division offered numerous services and defendant missed many of his appointments. Defendant has a long criminal history and is currently incarcerated without the possibility of parole until 2015. Credible expert testimony revealed that defendant does not understand the child's needs and does not have the empathy necessary to meet those needs. Bonding evaluations revealed that the child does not know defendant and is closely bonded with her foster parents. The credible expert evidence demonstrates that defendant lacks the capacity to care for the child and is incapable of providing her a safe, stable, and permanent home.

Judge Baxter 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. Her 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 therefore affirm substantially for the reasons that the judge expressed in her comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion.

1 The biological mother, J.D.T., is not involved in this appeal.