NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. K.S-N

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5732-13T1

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

K.S-N.,

Defendant-Appellants,

and

A.B. and D.A.H.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF N.H.-A.B., and

J.Z.A.H.,

Minors.

__________________________________

June 16, 2015

Before Judges Koblitz, Haas and Higbee.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-129-14.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Durrell Wachtler Ciccia, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

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

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

K.S-N.1 appeals from a July 22, 2014 order terminating her parental rights to her two sons, N.H.-A.B. (fictitiously Ned), born in 2005 and J.Z.A.H. (fictitiously Jim), born in 2009.2 The Law Guardian urges us to affirm. We do so substantially on the basis of Judge Stephen J. Bernstein's oral opinion.

The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) received notice in May 2012 that Ned had missed over forty days of school. After enrolling in a multitude of services, defendant continued to test positive for drugs. Her children were placed with a paternal grandmother, and then removed at the grandmother's request. Eventually Ned was placed in a residential treatment program, while Jim was placed with a foster family who wish to adopt him.

At the guardianship trial, the Division expert psychologist, Dr. DeNigris, opined that defendant tested in the "extremely low range" on the IQ scale. He stated that her substance abuse issues remained unaddressed, and indicated that the children did not have "a healthy bond or attachment" to her. He acknowledged that the children would be "saddened" if their relationship with their mother was severed, but that their loss could be mitigated. He noted that a positive bond was forming between Jim and his foster parents. Dr. DeNegris found defendant unfit to parent the children now or in the foreseeable future. He opined that it was critical that the boys achieve permanency soon. An adoption expert from the Division explained that efforts would be made to find a "select home adoption"3 for Ned in spite of his behavioral issues.

Defendant's expert opined that the boys were bonded with their mother, but agreed that she was not yet able to parent them. The expert could not predict when she might be able to do so, even if she fully complied with services. Defendant also called the monitor from the therapeutic supervised visitation program who described defendant's appropriate interactions with her children.

In his comprehensive opinion, Judge Bernstein found the Division's expert more credible than defendant's expert, who the judge found at times formed opinions without a basis. The judge found that the Division had proven all four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and that termination of defendant's parental rights was in both children's best interests. Our review of the trial judge's decision is limited. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014) (citation omitted). We defer to his expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998), and we are bound by his factual findings so long as they are supported by sufficient credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (citations omitted). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial judge's factual findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, his legal conclusions are unassailable.

Although defendant's own expert conceded her inability to care for the boys at the time of trial, defendant contends on appeal that termination was not in the children's best interests because she has attempted to resolve her drug abuse issues and has maintained contact with her children. She also argues that the Division failed to prove that her drug abuse directly harmed her children. The family initially came to the attention of the Division due to defendant's educational neglect of Ned. Unfortunately, defendant has demonstrated an inability to provide a safe and stable home for both of her children, even with the assistance of the Division. Her legal arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

1 We use the parties' initials to preserve the confidentiality of the family.

2 The biological fathers of the boys have not appealed the decision to terminate their parental rights.

3 Our Supreme Court has defined "select home adoption" as "a process that includes looking for an adoptive home in New Jersey and registering the child on the national adoption exchange." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Services v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 98 (2008).