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

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

M.R.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

D.M.,

Defendant.

____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF N.R., a minor.

____________________________________

November 15, 2016

Submitted November 7, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Sabatino, Haas and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FG-03-51-14.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Marc D. Pereira, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton-Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jennifer A. Lochel, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for minor N.R. (Joseph H. Ruiz, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

After a Title 30 guardianship trial, the Family Part terminated the parental rights of defendant M.R. as to her youngest biological child. The trial judge concluded from the unrebutted proofs that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency ("the Division") had established by clear and convincing evidence all four of the criteria for termination under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a).

On appeal, defendant contends that the Division failed to meet its evidentiary burden. She argues that, despite her unremitting substance abuse and mental health issues, the best interests of her son nevertheless weigh against the termination of her parental rights. We reject her claims of error and affirm.

Defendant has had a troubled past, having been physically and sexually abused from a young age. She dropped out of high school and worked thereafter for a period of time at bars. She has not been employed for over a dozen years and has been unable to maintain steady housing. She has been diagnosed with serious mental health issues, including emotional distress and anger management difficulties. She has a long history of substance abuse problems, with repeated relapses after periods of treatment and non-compliance with many programs offered to her.

Defendant is the biological mother of several children, including two sons, S.R. ("Steve"), who was age sixteen at the time of trial in the fall of 2015, and N.R. ("Nate"), who was then age seven.1 The Division had more than thirty contacts with defendant since the time of Steve's birth due to reports of potential abuse or neglect, although a number of them were not substantiated. During Nate's life, the Division removed him from defendant's custody three separate times as the result of her physical abuse, often caused by her substance abuse and underlying mental health issues.

In 2013, the Division removed both Steve and Nate from defendant after a report of physical abuse of Steve occurring while defendant's boyfriend, J.M., was driving with defendant and Nate in the car. Over the next several years following that incident, the two boys lived in various foster homes and, for a period, with defendant's mother in North Carolina. The boys were returned to New Jersey after the grandmother indicated that she did not wish to adopt them. The Division ultimately placed Nate with a pre-adoptive foster home, where he has been cared for capably. Meanwhile, the older son, Steve, was placed in a different foster home.2

Paternity tests revealed the identity of Nate's biological father, D.M. Although the Division had some contact with D.M., he eventually became unresponsive, and was included as a defendant in the Title 30 termination case. He did not appeal the final judgment terminating his parental rights.

The Division presented two witnesses at the four-day guardianship trial: a caseworker and a psychological expert, Dr. Linda Jeffrey. The caseworker recounted that the Division had provided defendant with various treatment programs for substance abuse and mental health, none of which she successfully completed. The caseworker also described the Division's efforts to provide defendant with visitation with Nate. She noted that defendant would sometimes smell like alcohol during visitations and make inappropriate comments to her son. The caseworker also explained why the Division had ruled out other persons suggested by defendant as alternative caregivers. The caseworker described Nate's positive and affectionate interactions with his current foster family, and reported that they wished to adopt him.

In her own testimony, Dr. Jeffrey related the results of her two psychological evaluations of defendant as well as her bonding evaluations of Nate. Based on her review, Dr. Jeffrey opined that defendant lacked the emotional capability to raise a child. She concluded that Nate would be at risk of harm if he were returned to her care. Given defendant's long-standing problems, Dr. Jeffrey stated that she was "highly unlikely" to improve her mental health or resolve her persistent substance abuse problems.

Dr. Jeffrey contrasted the bonding evaluations of Nate with, respectively, defendant and his foster mother. Although Nate displayed some affection towards defendant, Dr. Jeffrey observed that he did not "depend on her as a parenting authority" and that she did not engage with him in a "secure" manner. By comparison, Dr. Jeffrey perceived "an emotional foundation for the development of a secure attachment" between Nate and his foster mother, who the child spontaneously hugged at their session.

The Law Guardian presented its own psychological expert, Dr. Gianni Pirelli. Dr. Pirelli echoed Dr. Jeffrey's opinions. He found it significant that defendant disclaimed responsibility for her past substance abuse and physical abuse towards her children, instead faulting her older son for the Division's intervention. Dr. Pirelli opined that defendant's ongoing mental health and substance abuse could place Nate at an increased risk of harm. Dr. Pirelli conducted his own bonding evaluation with Nate and defendant, similarly finding that the connection between Nate and his mother was insecure, even though she exhibited affection for him.

Defendant did not testify at trial, and she called no witnesses.

After sifting through the proofs, the trial judge agreed with the Division and the Law Guardian that termination of defendant's parental rights is in Nate's best interests. The judge detailed in his oral opinion why he concluded that defendant had endangered the child in the past (prong one), N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1); is unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable home for the child in the future and further delay will add to that harm (prong two), N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(2); the Division had made reasonable efforts to provide defendant with services, which defendant failed to attend or complete (prong three), N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(3); and that the factual and expert proofs clearly showed that termination will not cause Nate more harm than good (prong four), N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4).

Our scope of review on appeal is limited in guardianship cases brought by the Division. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014) (citing In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440, 472 (2002)). In general, a reviewing court should not disturb the factual findings of the trial court in Title 30 termination cases if they are supported by "adequate, substantial and credible evidence[.]" N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (quoting In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)).

Having reviewed the record in light of this limited scope of review and the applicable legal principles, it is abundantly clear that the Division met its burden of proof in this case. There is no need to prolong any further efforts to see if defendant could become sufficiently stable and competent to raise this child. There is substantial, and indeed unrebutted, credible evidence to support the trial court's determinations.

We sustain the final judgment of guardianship, substantially for the perceptive and sound reasons articulated in Judge John L. Call's thorough December 21, 2015 bench opinion.

Affirmed.

1 We use fictitious names to protect the privacy of the children.

2 Steve's status has been addressed in a separate docket in the Family Part and is not part of the judgment with respect to Nate that defendant appeals.