NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. L.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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

L.Q.,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

F.S.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF H.S. and S.S.,

minors.

__________________________________________________

July 7, 2015

Submitted June 30, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, Docket No. FN-16-67-14.

F.S., appellant pro se.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant F.S. appeals an order entered in this Title Nine action that prohibited him from transporting his thirteen-year-old daughter, H.S.,1 to his New York home because defendant refused to allow a home assessment based on concerns about his ownership and storage of weapons at that location. In this appeal, which followed an order terminating the action, defendant argues

I. [THE] TRIAL COURT EGREGIOUSLY ABUSED [ITS] DISCRETION BY DENYING DEFENDANT [] HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FLIPPING [THE] PROOF STANDARD.

II. THE TRIAL COURT EGREGIOUSLY ABUSED [ITS] DISCRETION BY DENYING [DEFENDANT] PARENTING TIME WITH HIS DAUGHTER, H.S., IN NEW YORK STATE, WHILE HE IS ALLOWED TO BRING HIS OLDER DAUGHTER, S.S., TO NEW YORK STATE.

III. [THE] TRIAL COURT ABUSED [ITS] DISCRETION BY ORDERING [DEFENDANT] TO HAVE [DIVISION] WORKERS GO TO HIS HOUSE IN [NEW YORK] STATE TO INVESTIGATE TO SEE IF HIS WEAPONS WERE PROPERLY SECURED, WHEN WORKERS HAD NO EXPERTISE ON HOW TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE PROPERLY SECURED WEAPONS.

IV. [THE] TRIAL COURT EGREGIOUSLY ABUSED [ITS] DISCRETION AS IT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION TO DENY [DEFENDANT] RIGHT TO BRING HIS DAUGHTER, H.S., TO NEW YORK STATE, BUT WOULD ALLOW HER TO GO ANYWHERE ELSE WITH [DEFENDANT]. AS [A] RESULT OF THIS DENIAL, YOUNGEST DAUGHTER HAS BECOME ESTRANGED AND ALIENATED FROM [DEFENDANT].

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following brief comments.

Defendant apparently believes his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and his alleged right to train his daughter in their use, transcends the trial judge's legitimate concern about the child's best interests, particularly in light of the fact that the child has previously been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression and anxiety, and has a history of suicidal ideation. As the judge properly recognized, these circumstances outweigh any perceived infringement of defendant's Second Amendment rights. Indeed, having carefully examined the record on appeal, we share the judge's concern that permitting the child to be taken to defendant's New York home in these circumstances without some assurance regarding the storage of weapons there constitutes a recipe for disaster.

It is also important to recognize that the order in question does not bar defendant's lawful possession or use of his weapons; the order requires only that there be an assessment of defendant's New York home regarding his storage of the weapons and any other related safety concerns, before H.S. may be permitted to visit defendant in that particular location. And the order does not otherwise impact defendant's parenting rights. Accordingly, there is no reasonable basis upon which to conclude the order could result in an estrangement between defendant and his daughter.

Affirmed.

1H.S., who was born in 1999, and her older sister, S.S., who was born in 1996, reside with their mother in Pompton Lakes. Defendant has visitation rights; he has one home in Rutherford and another in Downsville, New York.