DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. A.W. and S.R.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4631-05T44631-05T4

A-4666-05T4

CONSOLIDATED

DIVISION OF YOUTH AND

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

A.W. and S.R.,

Defendants-Appellants.

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF Q.M.R. (Minor).

__________________________________

 

Submitted November 27, 2006 - Decided December 15, 2006

Before Judges Seltzer and C.L. Miniman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FG-04-60-06.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellants (Mark Tabakman, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief for appellant A.W.; Alan I. Smith, Designated Counsel, on the brief for appellant S.R.).

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary A. Hurley, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law Guardian for Q.M.R., a minor (Melissa R. Vance, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

A.W. and S.R., the parents of Q.M.R., a minor, appeal from a judgment terminating their parental rights contending that the Division of Youth and Family Services (the Division) did not clearly and convincingly establish that termination of parental rights was appropriate. The matter was tried to a conclusion before Judge Robert W. Page, who reserved decision and subsequently issued a lengthy and comprehensive oral opinion finding the facts and stating his conclusions.

Our review is a limited one. If the decision of the trial judge is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed on appeal unless the findings "are so wholly insupportable as to result in a denial of justice." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974). "[T]he appellate court therefore ponders whether . . . there is substantial evidence in support of the trial judge's findings and [ultimate] conclusions." Id. at 484 (citation omitted). The evidence supporting a termination must be clear and convincing. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 611-12 (1986).

The test for termination of parental rights is the "best interests of the child." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The statute requires that the following elements be proven in order for termination to occur:

(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.

[Ibid.]

These four factors are not discrete and separate; rather, they are related and overlap with each other to provide a comprehensive standard that identifies the best interests of the child. In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 348 (1999).

After carefully reviewing the record in light of the written arguments advanced by the parties, we conclude that the issues presented by A.W. and S.R. are without sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in this opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial judge in his oral opinion delivered on March 29, 2006. The findings and conclusions of the judge are supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc., supra, 65 N.J. at 483-84. Termination of parental rights was clearly and convincingly mandated by the evidence before Judge Page.

Affirmed.

 

There were two notices of appeal from the one judgment terminating the parental rights of defendants A.W. and S.R. and we consolidated those appeals by order of June 13, 2006.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4631-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

December 15, 2006