NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. C.C.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

C.C.,

Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF C.D., A Minor.

_________________________________

February 10, 2014

Argued January 29, 2014 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes, Fasciale and Haas.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FG-02-61-12.

Louis W. Skinner, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Skinner on the brief).

Julie B. Christensen, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief; Ms. Christensen, on the brief).

Lisa M. Black, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for minor (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Ms. Black, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant C.C., the biological father of C.D., born in 2010, appeals from a September 12, 2012 judgment of guardianship, which terminated his parental rights to the child.1 Defendant contends that the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the "Division") failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a by clear and convincing evidence.2 After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, and in light of prevailing legal standards and arguments presented, we affirm.

We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendant. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge John A. Conte's thorough forty-page written decision. We add the following brief comments.

We are satisfied that, commencing with the Division's involvement with defendant in August 2010, and continuing up to and including the commencement of the trial one year and eleven months later, defendant was unable or unwilling to overcome the deficiencies that rendered him unable to safely parent the child. A psychological evaluation revealed that defendant "experiences periods of paranoia, poor reality testing, depression, anger, mood disturbance, and problems characterized by interpersonal conflict"; has "severe cognitive distortions regarding parenting"; has a history of substance abuse and criminal activity; and lacks empathy. The Division offered parenting classes, substance abuse evaluation and treatment, and psychiatric evaluations, but defendant "resisted engaging in services . . . to address parental deficits." Defendant also missed several scheduled visitation appointments with the child. A bonding evaluation revealed that the child did not have an emotional bond with defendant. The credible expert evidence demonstrates that defendant lacks the capacity to care for the child and is incapable of providing him a safe, stable, and permanent home.

Judge Conte carefully reviewed the evidence presented, and thereafter concluded that the Division had met by clear and convincing evidence all of the legal requirements for a judgment of guardianship. His opinion tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a, accords with In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999), In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999), and N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986), and is supported by substantial and credible evidence in the record. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448-49 (2012). We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons that the judge expressed in his comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion.

1 The biological mother, K.D., is not involved in this appeal.

2 Defendant also contends that New Jersey lacked jurisdiction over this case. After careful consideration of defendant's argument and the applicable law, we are satisfied that this argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).