DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. S.M.

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4894-05T44894-05T4

DIVISION OF YOUTH AND

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

S.M.,

Defendant-Appellant,

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF M.W.,

A Minor.

__________________________________

 

Submitted November 14, 2006 - Decided November 28, 2006

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-16-06.

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

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Brett L. Carrick, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law Guardian for minor (Cynthia McCulloch DiLeo, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

S.M., the biological mother of baby girl M.W., born January 27, 2004, appeals from the order of the Chancery Division, Family Part, entered on March 24, 2006, terminating her parental rights to M.W. On December 8, 2005, the child's biological father executed an identified surrender of his parental rights.

Termination of parental rights is authorized when found to be in the best interests of the child. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.G., 344 N.J. Super. 418, 434 (App. Div. 2001), certif. denied, 171 N.J. 44 (2002). Such actions require proof by clear and convincing evidence. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.C., 346 N.J. Super. 435, 439 (App. Div. 2002). Termination actions brought under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a, are decided under a four-part "best interests of the child" standard first enunciated by the Court in N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 604-611 (1986) and now codified in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a.

On appeal, S.M. argues:

POINT I.

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 CHILD WAS 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 CHILD.

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

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

Contrary to the appellant, the Law Guardian supports the decision below.

On appeal, factual findings and conclusions of the trial judge are generally given deference, especially when the evidence is "largely testimonial and involves questions of credibility." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998) (quoting In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108, 117 (1997)). An appellate court should not disturb the "'factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless [it is] convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.'" Ibid. (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)) (alteration in original).

We have considered the argument advanced by the appellant in light of the record, and for reasons stated by Judge Grant in his thoughtful and comprehensive twenty-six page decision entered on March 24, 2006, we conclude that the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the child's best interests, assessed under statutory standards, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a, warrants termination of the appellant's parental rights. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4894-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

November 28, 2006

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.