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

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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,1

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

A.A.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF A.M.B.F.A., a minor.

________________________________________________________________

May 21, 2014

Submitted May 6, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Fisher, Espinosa and O'Connor.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, Docket No. FG-16-58-12.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Sandra Ostwald, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor A.M.B.F.A. (Sean Lardner, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

A.A. (Ann),2 was sixteen years old and under the care of the Division herself when she gave birth to A.M.B.F.A. (Alexa) in April 2011. She appeals from a final judgment terminating her parental rights. We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge George E. Sabbath in his oral opinion.

The Division filed a Title 30 complaint for custody, care and supervision of Alexa when she was eleven days old. Prior to Alexa's birth, Ann was a chronic runaway from programs where she was placed by the Division and engaged in disruptive, violent behavior that caused her to be removed from placements. After Alexa's birth, this behavior continued and included failures to properly attend to Alexa's needs. As a result, in September 2011, the trial court ordered that Ann and Alexa be placed in separate foster homes. During the time period from September 2011 until April 2012, Ann visited with Alexa only four times. She continued to fail to comply with multiple efforts by the Division to provide her with appropriate services.

A guardianship complaint was filed in May 2012. Ann advised the Division in July 2012 that she had moved to Georgia. She gave birth to a second child in September. The Georgia Department of Family and Children Services took custody of him shortly after he was born. Ann did not comply with any evaluations ordered by the court and refused offers to assist her in visiting Alexa or returning to New Jersey for the evaluations or trial.

Alexa has been under the care of her foster mother since she was four months old. Dr. Robert Kanen, a psychologist, conducted a bonding evaluation on behalf of the Division and concluded Alexa was "securely attached" to her foster mother. Her foster mother would like to adopt Alexa. As noted, Ann has had very limited contact with Alexa since birth.

The Division considered and ruled out several relatives as possible placements for Alexa. None of those relatives appealed the Division's decisions to rule them out. Ann's attorney advised the court at trial that Ann desired that her parental aunt, rather than Alexa's foster mother, have custody of her.

N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) authorizes the Division to petition for the termination of parental rights in the "best interests of the child" if the following standards are met:

(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.

In her appeal, Ann argues that the Division failed to prove each of these prongs by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree.

Judge Sabbath carefully considered each of these prongs and cited adequate, substantial evidence in the record to support his conclusion that each of the prongs had been proven by clear and convincing evidence.

A trial court's decision to terminate parental rights is subject to limited appellate review. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007). If supported by "adequate, substantial, and credible evidence in the record," the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to deference. Ibid.; see also Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998) ("Because of the family courts' special . . . expertise in family matters, appellate courts should accord deference to family court factfinding."). The family court's decision to terminate parental rights will not be disturbed "when there is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the court's findings." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008).

Because we find that Judge Sabbath's findings are supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence in the record, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the trial court's oral opinion.

Affirmed.

1 At the time this action was commenced, this agency was known as the Division of Youth and Family Services. We refer to the agency throughout as the Division.

2 Fictitious names are used to protect the confidentiality of the minors' names.