NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. R.C.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4547-04T44547-04T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

R.C.,

Defendant-Appellant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF K.Z.S.C., II, Y.T.L-C., and

R.S.C.,

Minors.

__________________________________

 

Submitted November 14, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Lintner and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, FG-07-294-04.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (William J. Sweeney, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Susan Brown-Peitz, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for minors (Noel Christian Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Law Guardian, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following a bench trial, defendant, R.C., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her three children, K.Z.S.C., II, born November 8, 2001, Y.T.L-C., born August 18, 1998, and R.S.C., born January 23, 1996. The children's natural fathers were also named as defendants. M.L., the natural father of Y.T.L-C., and B.F., the natural father of R.S.C., surrendered their parental rights prior to trial. K.Z.S.C.'s father, B.B., defaulted.

An appellate court sitting in review of a bench trial gives deference to the findings of fact by the trial court, provided the findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-471 (1999); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974); State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). Here, following the trial, Judge Peter Ryan rendered a comprehensive written opinion containing findings of fact that are fully supported by the credible evidence in the record. The judge also correctly applied the legal standard set forth in New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986), now codified at N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a. See also In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347-48 (1999).

On appeal, R.C. contends:

SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE DID NOT EXIST SUPPORTING THE COURT'S FINDING THAT THE "BEST INTERESTS" TEST WAS PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

(A) THERE DID NOT EXIST CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT THE HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHILDREN WERE AND WOULD CONTINUE TO BE ENDANGERED BY THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP.

(B) THERE DID NOT EXIST CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNWILLING OR WAS UNABLE TO ELIMINATE THE HARM FACING THE CHILDREN.

(C) THERE DID NOT EXIST CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE DIVISION MADE "REASONABLE EFFORTS" TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO R.C.

(D) THE COURT'S FINDINGS THAT TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WILL NOT DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

 
We have carefully reviewed the record and, in light of applicable law, conclude that R.C.'s contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Ryan in his written opinion of March 23, 2005.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4547-04T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

November 28, 2005