DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. T.T.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1845-14T2

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

T.T. a/k/a T.S.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF B.L.M.S., a minor.

__________________________________

December 10, 2015

Submitted November 30, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Fasciale, Nugent and Higbee.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FG-14-20-14.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Ruth Harrigan, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).

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

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor B.L.M.S. (James J. Gross, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant T.T. appeals from a November 18, 2014 judgment of guardianship terminating her parental rights to her seven-year-old son B.L.M.S. (the child) and placing him in the custody of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division).1 Defendant contends the Division failed to prove each prong of the best interests of the child standard, 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 the 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 Maritza Berdote Byrne's comprehensive written decision. We add the following brief comments.

We are satisfied that, beginning with the Division's involvement with defendant in August 2008, and continuing up to and including the commencement of the trial in July 2014, defendant was unable to overcome the deficiencies that rendered her unable to safely parent the child.2 Defendant has a history of mental illness, behavioral problems, lack of insight, and unstable housing. The Division removed the child at age four due to defendant's pattern of delusional behavior which placed her and the child in a constant state of housing instability. The credible expert evidence demonstrates that defendant lacks the capacity to care for the child and is incapable of providing him a safe, stable, and permanent home.

The judge 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 New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986), and is supported by substantial 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 for the reasons the judge expressed in her well-reasoned opinion.

Affirmed.

1 The Division's involvement with the family began prior to the passage of the June 29, 2012 legislation, which reorganized the Department of Children and Families, including renaming the Division of Youth and Family Services as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. L. 2012, c. 16, eff. June 29, 2012 (amending N.J.S.A. 9:3A-10(b)). To avoid confusion, we refer to the Division by its current name.

2 We note that the Division had been involved with defendant prior to 2008, when she herself was a minor.