.A-0 OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. A.C. and D.P.-C IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.W.C. and J.D.C Minors

 

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-0

A-3234-14T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

A.C. and D.P.-C.,

Defendants-Appellants.

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF J.W.C. and J.D.C.,

Minors.

__________________________________

February 12, 2016

 

Submitted January 12, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FG-04-187-14.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant A.C. (Janet A. Allegro, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant D.P.-C. (Marina Ginzburg, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Laura A. Dwyer, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Melissa R. Vance, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendants A.C. (Alvin)1 and D.P.-C. (Darla) appeal the order terminating their parental rights. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Darla and Alvin are the mother and father of J.W.C. (Jaclyn) and J.D.C. (Julia). On May 3, 2013 the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) received a phone call from the Camden County Police Department, informing that a woman (Abigail) who had been watching the children had reported that Darla was refusing to return home to care for them. Abigail stated that Darla had left early that morning, returning for only a few minutes some twelve hours later before leaving the home for a second time. Abigail had contacted Darla, to no avail, asking her to come home to care for her children.

When the police located Darla in a park with a group of people, she initially denied that she was the mother of Jaclyn and Julia. When questioned further, she said she had denied being their mother because she was drinking with friends. After questioning Darla, the police concluded that she was intoxicated and had left the children for at least twelve hours with Abigail who was known for abusing crack cocaine. The Division concluded that the children were in imminent risk of harm and instituted their removal.

After her arrest on outstanding charges, a drug screen of Darla tested positive for opiates; a hair follicle test revealed cocaine and heroin. A drug and alcohol assessment resulted in a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and intensive outpatient treatment was recommended. Initially, Darla refused to attend the recommended substance abuse programs but did eventually complete treatment in November 2014.

Although an evaluation by Larry Seidman, Ph.D., recommended parenting education, Darla did not complete that program. Her supervised visits with Jaclyn and Julia were inconsistent and sporadic; she attended once a month at times and then would miss many months altogether.

At the time of these events, Alvin was incarcerated for drug offenses committed after the birth of his two daughters. In July 2014, he was released to a halfway house, but violated parole shortly thereafter and was returned to custody, losing the right to visit with his daughters.

In 2014, a court-ordered psychologist, Linda Jeffrey, Ph.D., conducted several evaluations of both Alvin and Darla. Jeffrey opined the following after evaluating Darla

[She] displayed serious adjustment, mood dysregulation, grandiosity, mania and irritability, substance-related problems, and personality disorder problems related to narcissism and borderline personality features. She lacks personal insight . . . is likely to display poor parenting judgment . . . is not prepared to serve as a role model for her children of appropriate self-regulation and emotional maturity.

As to Alvin, Jeffrey formed the following diagnostic impression: "[Alvin] displayed significant problems related to adjustment disorder and personality disorder difficulties in areas of significance to parenting capacity . . . . He is not prepared to provide a safe parenting environment or to serve as an appropriate model of rule-governed behavior or adult self-reliance and self-regulation."

Jeffrey further noted that the children displayed an "insecure attachment" to each parent and she cautioned that the girls would be at "risk for harm" if placed in the care of either Alvin or Darla. Jeffrey recommended that the children remain with their caregiver aunt, as "they displayed a secure attachment, . . . were responsive to her parenting authority, and related to her as a reliable source of security, stability, and basic trust."

On February 26, 2015, Judge Linda G. Baxter terminated the parental rights of both Alvin and Darla as to Jaclyn and Julia. It is from that order that they both now appeal.

N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) authorizes the Division to petition the termination of parental rights in the "best interests of the child" if the following standards are met

(1) The child's safety, health or development has been or will continue to be endangered by the parental relationship;

(2) The parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable home for the child and the delay of permanent placement will add to the harm. Such harm may include evidence that separating the child from his resource family parents would cause serious and enduring emotional or psychological harm to the child;

(3) The division has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the circumstances which led to the child's placement outside the home and the court has considered alternatives to termination of parental rights; and

(4) Termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good.

The trial judge carefully considered each of these prongs and cited adequate, substantial evidence in the record to support her conclusion that each of the prongs had been proven by clear and convincing evidence.

"Our review of a trial judge's decision to terminate parental rights is limited." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007) (citing In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440, 472 (2002)). "The general rule is that findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998). Moreover, because of "the family court's special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters," we accord even greater deference to the judge's fact finding. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328, 343 (2010). Unless the trial judge's factual findings are "so wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made" they should not be disturbed, even if the reviewing court would not have made the same decision. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (quoting C.B. Snyder Realty, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 233 N.J. Super. 65, 69 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 117 N.J. 165 (1989)).

 
 

Judge Baxter conducted a thorough assessment of the evidence, appraised the psychological evaluations prepared by two different medical professionals, and deftly considered each prong of the statute as to each parent. We affirm for the thoughtful reasons set forth in Judge Baxter's oral decision.

Affirmed.

1 We use pseudonyms to refer to the individuals in this case for the purposes of confidentiality and clarity.