DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. V.R.

 

(NOTE: The status of this decision is Published.)

                             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                        NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3418-16T1


NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

V.R.,

     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________

IN THE KINSHIP MATTER OF
J.R., a Minor.
________________________________

              Submitted May 22, 2018 – Decided May 29, 2018

              Before Judges Fasciale, Sumners and Moynihan.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County,
              Docket No. FL-02-0028-17.

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

              Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
              for respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant
              Attorney General, of counsel; Mehnaz Rahim,
              Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
           Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
           Guardian, attorney for minor (David B.
           Valentin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on
           the brief).

PER CURIAM

     Defendant V.R. (the mother) appeals from an order awarding

kinship legal guardianship (KLG) of her son (the child)1 to his

paternal uncle.        Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca entered the order and

rendered a forty-eight page written decision after conducting a

comprehensive hearing.        The focus of the appeal pertains to that

part of the order in which the judge ordered supervised visitation.

We affirm.

     The mother argues that the judge thwarted her visitation

rights by imposing supervised visitation; there is insufficient

evidential support to warrant supervised visitation; and that she

was otherwise fit to have unsupervised visitation with the child.

The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division)

contends that there exists ample support for the judge's visitation

ruling, and the law guardian emphasizes that the mother has made

these objections to the supervised visitation for the first time

on appeal.

     We   defer   to    a   judge's   factual   findings   and   credibility

determinations.    N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189


1
     The child was born in 2000.

                                       2                             A-3418-16T
1 N.J. 261, 293 (2007). "A reviewing court should uphold the factual

findings undergirding the trial [judge]'s decision if they are

supported by 'adequate, substantial and credible evidence' on the

record."    Id. at 279 (quoting In re Guardianship of J.T., 
269 N.J.

Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)).        "Because of the family courts'

special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters, appellate

courts should accord deference to [the judge's] fact[-]finding."

Cesare v. Cesare, 
154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998); accord N.J. Div. of

Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 
201 N.J. 328, 343 (2010).                We

have no reason to disturb the judge's findings.

     After a judge awards KLG, parents retain visitation rights.


N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-4(a)(4).         But they do so "as determined by the

[judge]."    Ibid.   Here, there is sufficient evidence in the record

to support the judge's findings that the mother suffers from

untreated chronic and severe mental illness, she exhibited no

commitment to psychiatric treatment, and that she lacked insight

into the child's substantial special needs, all of which supported

supervised    visitation,   which   was    regular   and    liberal.       The

uncontested opinion testimony from the Division's expert, who the

judge found credible, was that leaving the mother and the child

unsupervised    could    contribute      to   a   "[s]hared    [p]sychotic

[d]isorder."     The    expert   explained    that   this   would   lead    to

exacerbating the mental issues of both individuals.

                                     3                               A-3418-16T1
Affirmed.




            4   A-3418-16T1