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

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.Q.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

F.A.,1

Defendant.

___________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF R.A., a Minor.

___________________________________

April 20, 2015

Submitted March 11, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Waugh and Maven.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FG-02-0072-13.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Deric Wu, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

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

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor R.A. (Danielle Ruiz, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant R.Q. (Rebecca),2 the biological mother of R.A. (Randy), born in April 2011, appeals from an August 13, 2014 judgment of guardianship, which terminated her parental rights to the child. Rebecca contends that the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the "Division") failed to prove the third and fourth prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, and in light of prevailing legal standards and the arguments presented, we affirm.

Rebecca raises only one issue on appeal

POINT I TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WILL DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD BECAUSE [IT] SEVERS [RANDY'S] RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS MOTHER WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF A BOND WITH THE FOSTER PARENTS.

We need not repeat at length the factual findings and legal conclusions of Judge Margaret M. Foti's cogent and well-reasoned forty-three page opinion. Suffice it to say that after our independent review of the record, we concur. We add the following brief comments.

On December 4, 2011, this matter was opened by the Division upon receiving a referral from the Bergen County Police Department regarding Rebecca who was found wandering around Hackensack with Randy at around midnight. After attempts by the police to locate a shelter for them proved fruitless, Rebecca and Randy were transported to Bergen Regional Medical Center for Rebecca to undergo a mental health assessment, and for Randy to obtain a physical exam.

When the caseworker met with Rebecca in the hospital, Rebecca told her that she came to New Jersey from New York City the prior night at approximately 7:00 p.m. Rebecca said she was not a United States citizen but came to the United States from Ghana two-and-one-half years earlier to go to school in New York. Thereafter, she met F.A. and became pregnant. Rebecca advised the caseworker that F.A. was not involved in Randy's life. She provided the caseworker with F.A.'s contact information.

On December 7, F.A. contacted the Division after receiving a telephone message. F.A. advised that Rebecca was "not well." He said she suffered from mental illness and had previously told him and her uncle that she heard voices in her head. F.A. said that Rebecca moved so often, he never knew where his son was living.

The Division found housing for Rebecca and Randy at Shelter Our Sisters. On December 16, Rebecca was discharged from the shelter because she provided F.A. with the address, which was a direct violation of the shelter's rules. The Division attempted to place Rebecca and Randy in another shelter but none were available. The Division paid for Rebecca and Randy to stay in a hotel for the weekend. The Division also supplied Rebecca with food for Randy, as she had none. Though F.A.'s aunt agreed to allow Rebecca and Randy to live with her, Rebecca told the Division that she wanted Randy to go into foster care.

On December 19, the Division effectuated an emergency removal of Randy and placed him with a resource family. On December 19, a Family Part judge granted the Division's request for custody, care, and supervision.

Rebecca attended a psychiatric evaluation with Samiris Sostre, M.D., at the request of the Division. Rebecca told Dr. Sostre that she was happy that Randy had "a roof over his head," but that she was feeling lonely and stressed because she had no family support in the United States and because she was homeless. Dr. Sostre noted that Rebecca's ability to relate was "limited and superficial." Her affect was mildly inappropriate in that she would smile throughout the interview, raising the possibility that she was "experiencing paranoid and psychotic symptoms." Dr. Sostre pointed out that there was evidence of delusional beliefs. Dr. Sostre diagnosed Rebecca with "rule-out psychotic disorder" and noted that further psychiatric history and collateral information from the family was needed in order to make a firm diagnosis. Dr. Sostre recommended that Rebecca be referred to a mental health facility and psychiatrist.

In April, 2012, Alison Strasser Winston, Ph.D. conducted a parenting evaluation on Rebecca at the request of the Division. Dr. Winston reported that Rebecca "often spoke tangentially during the evaluation, demonstrated a looseness of associations in her thoughts, and her affect was at times inappropriate to the subjects being discussed." Her "indecisive" responses, according to Dr. Winston, "call[ed] into question her grasp on reality, as she does not appear to have an accurate understanding of the events occurring around her," but instead exhibited "indications of delusional thought processes."

Dr. Winston opined that when discussing Randy, Rebecca's "affect and the content of her description [of him] suggested that [she] has a minimal degree of emotional attachment to [him]." According to Dr. Winston, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) test revealed that Rebecca's "parenting attitudes and beliefs were generally within the below average range as compared to adult parents who had not had parent training." Dr. Winston reported,

She obtained high-risk scores in the following areas: Inappropriate Expectations, suggesting that she lacks understanding of normal child growth and development, and tends to be demanding and controlling; Low Level of Empathy, indicating that she does not understand or value children's normal developmental needs, lacks nurturing skills, and may be unable to handle parenting stressors; Reverses Family Roles, indicating that she uses her children to meet her self-needs, and expects her children to fulfill her needs for love, assurance, and comfort.

Dr. Winston concluded that Rebecca suffered "psychological issues that appear to impair her parenting capacity."

Dr. Winston made several recommendations including that Randy remain in foster care for the foreseeable future. She recommended that Rebecca be referred to psychotherapy to address her "paranoid and suspicious tendencies, her willingness to have [Randy] placed into foster care, her relationship issues with her son's father, and her current feelings about her separation from her son." Dr. Winston also recommended that Rebecca attend parenting classes, attend a support group for single parents; and that she "obtain stable employment."

In January 2012, Rebecca returned to New York City and resided in shelters in the Bronx and Brooklyn. In April, Rebecca informed a Division caseworker that she had an appointment for mental health services in New York, however, she did not follow through with the appointment. During 2012, Rebecca attended supervised visitation with Randy through June, attended one visit in August but missed visits for the balance of the year.

Rebecca resided at the Tillary Street Shelter in Brooklyn from April 2013 to April 2014. In April 2014, she was transferred to Harry's Place Shelter, which like the Tillary Street shelter was a shelter for adults with mental illnesses. Both shelters offered mental health services, and provided services to assist residents in obtaining independent housing. While at Tillary, Rebecca underwent a psychiatric evaluation. She was diagnosed with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, severe recurrent Major Depressive Disorder, and a Cognitive Disorder. She failed to comply with the recommendation to attend individualized therapy and counseling in either New York or New Jersey because she did not believe that she had any mental health issues.

On January 4, 2013, the Division filed a Verified Complaint for guardianship to terminate Rebecca's and F.A.'s parental rights to Randy. The Family Part judge signed the order to show cause. According to the Division records, in 2013, Rebecca failed to appear for psychological and bonding evaluations, and she infrequently visited with Randy.

During the two-day guardianship trial in July 2014, the Division introduced documentary evidence and presented three Division employees as witnesses: Kimberly Megnin, the permanency worker who coordinated the Division's efforts to provide the foster parents and the biological parents with services; Kristy Conway, an adoption specialist; and Karen Backiel, a field support worker who coordinated the efforts for an international placement with Rebecca's mother in Ghana. The Law Guardian supported the Division's position regarding termination of Rebecca's parental rights and adoption by the current foster parents. Rebecca did not testify or present any witnesses.

As for the first two prongs, the court found that Rebecca's "mental health issues, unstable housing, and inability to maintain employment" caused harm to Randy and will continue to do so. Similarly, the court found that Rebecca was unable or unwilling to overcome the deficiencies that rendered her unable to safely parent the child. The court credited the experts' opinions that Rebecca demonstrated "a minimal degree of emotional attachment to her son," and that she suffered "psychological issues that appear to impair her parenting capacity."

With respect to the third prong, the court determined the Division made reasonable efforts to provide services to help Rebecca, including psychological and psychiatric evaluations with recommendations for treatment, and referrals to mental health services. The court found that Rebecca chose not to engage in services provided by the Division, that she refused mental health treatment, and attended her court dates and visitation only "sporadically." The court further found that the Division reasonably explored available placement with the child's father, F.A., Rebecca's sisters, and her mother, who lived in Ghana. None were viable options.

As to the fourth prong, we agree with Rebecca that, ordinarily, a court should not make a decision on termination of parental rights without requiring a bonding evaluation between the parent and the child. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.R., 405 N.J. Super. 418, 440 (App. Div. 2009). We have also previously observed that comparative bonding evaluations are very important

[W]e can envision very few scenarios in which comparative evaluations would not be required. Indeed . . . it is of great significance in evaluating comparative harm under the fourth prong in showing that termination of parental rights likely will not do more harm than good and in sustaining [the Division's] burden of proof.
 
[Ibid. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).]

This case presents one of those exceptions, where a bonding evaluation is not necessary because of the overwhelming evidence of Rebecca's inability to provide permanency for Randy. The trial court's judgment that the fourth prong is satisfied is not premised on the fact that Randy would be harmed by losing his relationship with his foster parents, which plainly would require comparative evaluations. See In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1, 18 (1992). Rather, the harm posed is Rebecca's unfitness as a parent, irrespective of any attachment Randy has to his foster family. The record discloses that Rebecca suffers from a "severe" mental illness. Rebecca's mental health assessments with Dr. Sostre and Dr. Winston speak to her questionable "grasp on reality" and her "delusional thought processes." The psychological evaluation performed in New York resulted in a diagnosis of a severe Major Depressive Disorder. The trial court found Rebecca neither engaged in any services to address her mental illness nor made efforts to remediate her parental deficits. She did nothing to enable herself to obtain employment or to maintain a safe and stable home for Randy.

Rebecca also failed to attend court-ordered psychological and bonding evaluations during the guardianship phase of litigation, which the court "attributes to her inability to follow through on the steps necessary to preserve her parental rights." We agree with the court that Rebecca's failure to complete a bonding evaluation bespeaks a general unwillingness to remediate her parental deficits and present herself as an appropriate parental option for her son. Where a parent's own conduct makes it impossible to conduct a bonding evaluation, or where a parent refuses to cooperate with an evaluation, the child's need for a permanent placement cannot be held hostage to that requirement. Randy's need for immediate permanency, and Rebecca's inability to meet that need in the reasonably foreseeable future, fully support the court's conclusion that termination would not do more harm than good. Allowing Randy to be free for adoption increases the likelihood that he will achieve permanency in the future, a prospect that Rebecca cannot provide. Randy's foster family expressed a desire to adopt him, and Randy developed a bond with the foster family. Thus, the underlying fundamentals of the best interest test, to provide a child with an opportunity to find a permanent and stable home, were satisfied. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 108 (2008). Therefore, sufficient, credible evidence in the record supports the court's conclusions as to the fourth prong of the best interest standard, and Rebecca's argument to the contrary lacks merit.

Judge Foti 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-15.1(a), 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 New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services 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 expressed in Judge Foti's comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion.

Affirmed.

1 The biological father, F.A., entered an identified surrender of his parental rights on June 23, 2014.

2 Pseudonyms have been used for the sake of anonymity and ease of reference.