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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0164-05T40164-05T4

DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY

SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

R.C.,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF D.A.C.,

Minor.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted April 26, 2006 - Decided May 16, 2006

Before Judges Grall and Kimmelman.

On Appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, No. FG-09-227-05.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michael Confusione, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Bernice Toledo, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law Guardian for minor D.A.C. (Christopher A. Huling, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, R.C., appeals from a Family Part order entered April 15, 2005, which terminated her parental rights to her biological daughter D.A.C. and placed D.A.C. in the guardianship of plaintiff (DYFS) and made D.A.C. the legal ward of plaintiff.

Defendant in her brief raises these arguments:

THERE DID NOT EXIST SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD BELOW SUPPORTING THE TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT DYFS HAD PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILD NECESSITATED THE TERMINATION OF R.C.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS

A. THERE DID NOT EXIST CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT THE HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHILD WERE AND WOULD CONTINUE TO BE ENDANGERED BY THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP WITH R.C.

B. THERE DID NOT EXIST CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT R.C. WAS UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO ELIMINATE THE ALLEGED HARM TO THE CHILD

C. THERE DID NOT EXIST CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT DYFS MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO R.C.

D. THERE DID NOT EXIST CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE TERMINATION OF R.C.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS WILL NOT DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD

Defendant has three other biological children, T.C., K.C. and M.C. A relative of defendant has custody of M.C. and the natural father of K.C. currently has legal and physical custody of K.C. and T.C. The father of D.A.C. has not been established at this time.

DYFS first became aware of R.C. and her children in April, 1999 by a report from her then landlord. However, when DYFS attempted to investigate, it was unable to locate defendant at the landlord's address. DYFS became further aware of R.C. when it learned that the Hudson County Welfare Department had placed R.C. and her three children in a county shelter. A case worker from DYFS had periodic contacts with R.C. and learned that R.C. was a heroin user and had been arrested for shoplifting, an activity she attempted to have her children engage in.

In May 2003, DYFS received notice from a hospital that R.C. was pregnant. When R.C. gave birth she and the infant child (D.A.C.) both tested positive for opiates and marijuana. As a result, DYFS located and placed the infant in a foster home. R.C.'s visits, with help from DYFS, to the foster home to see D.A.C. were sporadic at best. Eventually, R.C. lost contact with DYFS and D.A.C. The efforts of DYFS to further locate R.C. became fruitless. DYFS then learned that R.C. had been incarcerated on possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. Following her incarceration, R.C. entered into a drug rehabilitation program but soon suffered a relapse.

In September 2005, DYFS filed a written complaint for guardianship of D.A.C. and for termination of R.C.'s parental rights. DYFS was able to have a doctor examine R.C. as well as study/review her contact with D.A.C. Dr. Kanen concluded that R.C. was a drug addict with severe personality disorders and that R.C. had a negative parental relationship with D.A.C. The infant had bonded well with her foster mother and looked to the foster mother as her parent.

The trial was held before Family Part Judge, Lawrence P. DeBello. Judge DeBello carefully followed the requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) which governed the case before him. He found that the requirements of the governing statute had been fully met by clear and convincing evidence by DYFS. Those requirements are as follows:

(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.

We have carefully examined the record and are satisfied that Judge DeBello's findings and conclusions of law met the statute, see also Rova Farms Resort, Inc. V. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). We substantially agree with the rulings embodied in Judge DeBello's seventy-six page oral opinion rendered on April 6, 2005 and affirm the order entered April 15, 2005.

Affirm.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-0164-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

May 16, 2006