NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. T.L.

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4928-05T44928-05T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

T.L.,

Defendant-Appellant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF

T.E.L., JR.,

A minor.

_____________________________________

 

Submitted March 5, 2007 - Decided March 16, 2007

Before Judges Lintner and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family

Part, Cumberland County, FG-06-16-06.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Jean B. Bennett, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Michael Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Seetha John-Holmes, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor T.E.L., Jr. (Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this appeal from a judgment of the Family Part, T.L., the biological father, twenty-nine years old at the time of the trial, challenges the order of guardianship and termination of his parental rights to his son T.E.L. The boy's biological mother, E.B., defaulted and is not participating in this appeal. T.L. argues that the order terminating his parental rights to his son should be reversed. He essentially claims that the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence three of the four prongs in the best interests test as enunciated by In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 346-48 (1999). He challenges the judge's finding that: (1) the child's health and development have been or will continue to be endangered by the parental relationship; (2) DYFS made reasonable efforts to assist him in reunification; and (3) termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good.

DYFS first became involved with E.B. in September 2002, when it received a referral regarding a domestic violence incident between E.B. and L.S., the biological father of E.B.'s two older children. Although the initial allegations were unsubstantiated, a second referral in March 2003 revealed that, following the execution of a search warrant, a shotgun and crack pipe were found in the living room of L.S. and E.B.'s home. The home had no electricity or heat and was lit by candlelight. As a result, the two children E.B. had with L.S. were removed and placed in approved foster care.

On July 23, 2003, E.B. disclosed to DYFS that she was four months pregnant with T.E.L. At the time, she had tested positive for marijuana. She failed to start an outpatient drug treatment program offered by DYFS. T.E.L. was born on November 29, 2003. Both T.E.L. and E.B. tested positive for cocaine. In April 2004, a paternity test confirmed that T.L. was the father. T.L. was incarcerated in March 2004, having failed to appear in court on a robbery charge. He later pled guilty to second-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1a(1), and was sentenced on May 28, 2004, to six years imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of five years. T.L. last saw his son during supervised visitation when T.E.L. was three months old.

T.L. left home when he was thirteen years old. He was first incarcerated as a juvenile when he was fourteen and has two other adult convictions: aggravated assault and possession of CDS. T.L.'s mother was ruled out by DYFS as a caretaker because she is disabled and financially unable to care for T.E.L. T.L's grandmother declined to take T.E.L. because she felt she was too old to care for the child. T.L.'s aunt did not want to disrupt placement after visiting with T.E.L.'s foster parents. Expert testimony established that T.L. has significant mental health problems, which would have an adverse impact on his ability to provide safe, reliable, and consistent parenting.

T.E.L. has been with his current foster parents since September 2005, where he was placed after his prior classification of medically fragile was downgraded. When first placed with his current foster parents, T.E.L. participated in head banging, biting, and other aggressive behavior. Since being with his foster parents, this aggressive behavior has stopped and T.E.L. was found to be "a happily adjusted child" who has bonded with his foster parents, who T.E.L. calls "mommy and daddy." According to DYFS's expert, T.E.L. is receiving "meticulously attuned care" from his foster parents who "conscientiously address[] each of his problems." They have indicated their desire to adopt T.E.L. and they "can't imagine [their] lives without him." DYFS's expert concluded that T.E.L. would be at a high risk for serious and enduring harm if removed from the care of his foster parents, and that there would be no serious and enduring harm if T.E.L. did not see his father again, having not visited with him since the age of three months.

We have reviewed T.L.'s arguments in light of the record and are satisfied that Judge Mendez properly applied N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 599-612 (1986), and the provisions of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a. T.L.'s arguments to the contrary are devoid of merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). The judge's opinion outlines, at length, the history of the matter, as well as the testimony of the various witnesses, including the expert. There was sufficient evidence on the record to support his findings and conclusions. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Mendez in his thorough and comprehensive fifty-eight page written opinion of April 27, 2006.

 
Affirmed.

The judgment also terminated the parental rights of E.B.'s three other minor children, K.R.S., K.A.S., and T.B., along with the parental rights of L.S., the biological father of K.R.S and K.A.S. E.B. did not name a father for T.B. Neither E.B. nor L.S. have appealed those terminations.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-4928-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

March 16, 2007


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.