NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. D.H.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

 

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4945-12T2

 

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

 

Plaintiff-Respondent, v.

D.H.,

 

Defendant-Appellant.

 

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF

 

S.A.H.,

 

A Minor.

 

 

 

 

Submitted January 22, 2014 Decided

February 4, 2014

 

Before Judges Fisher, Espinosa and O'Connor.

 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-67-13.

 

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Elizabeth D. Burke, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

 

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

 

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender,Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Todd S. Wilson,Designated Counsel,on the brief).

 

PER CURIAM

 

DefendantD.H.appealsajudgmentterminatingherparental rightstoherseventhchild,S.A.H.,whowasbornonDecember

15,2007,1 largelyasaresultofdefendant'sinabilityto

 

resolveherlong-standingsubstanceabuseproblem. Weaffirm substantiallyforthereasonssetforthbyJudgeRonaldD. Wigler in his written opinion.

Parents have a constitutionally protected right to the

 

care,custodyandcontroloftheirchildren. Santoskyv.

 

Kramer,455 U.S. 745,753,102 S. Ct. 1388,1394-95,71L.Ed.

 

2d599,606(1982);InreGuardianshipofK.H.O.,161N.J.337,

 

346(1999). "Therightstoconceiveandtoraiseone'schildren havebeendeemed'essential,''basiccivilrights...,''far

more precious . . . than property rights.'" Stanleyv.

 

Illinois,405 U.S. 645,651,92 S. Ct. 1208,1212,31L.Ed.2d

 

551, 558 (1972) (internal citations omitted). "[T]he preservation and strengthening of family life is a matter of

public concern as being in the interests of the general

 

 

1Threeof defendant's children are overtheageoftwenty-one years. Afourthpassedawayin2004attheageofsixteen. Defendantsurrenderedherparental rightstoherfifthand sixth children.

 

welfare." N.J.S.A.30:4C-1(a);seealsoK.H.O.,supra,161N.J.

 

at 347.

The constitutional right to the parental relationship, however,isnotabsolute. N.J.Div.ofYouth&FamilyServs.v.

 

A.W.,103N.J.591,599(1986). Attimes,aparent'sinterest

 

mustyieldtotheState'sobligationtoprotectchildrenfrom

 

harm. InreGuardianshipofJ.C.,129N.J.1,10(1992). To

 

effectuatetheseconcerns,theLegislaturecreatedatestfor determiningwhetheraparent'srightsmustbeterminatedinthe

child's best interests. N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) requires that

 

theDivisionofChildProtectionandPermanency(the Division) provebyclear andconvincingevidencethefollowingfour prongs:

(1) The child's safety, health or developmenthasbeen or willcontinuetobe endangeredby the parentalrelationship;

 

(2) The parentisunwillingor unable to eliminate the harm facingthechildor is unableor unwilling to providea safe and stable home forthe child andthe delay of permanentplacementwilladdtotheharm

. . .;

 

(3) The [D]ivision has made reasonable efforts toprovideservicestohelpthe parentcorrectthecircumstanceswhichled to thechild'splacementoutsidethehome andthecourt hasconsideredalternatives to terminationof parentalrights; and

 

(4)Terminationofparentalrightswillnot do moreharm than good.

 

SeealsoA.W., supra, 103 N.J.at 604-11.

 

Afteratwo-daytrial,JudgeWiglerrenderedafifty-two page written opinion in which he thoroughly reviewed the evidence, made credibility findings, and determinedthe Division proved all four prongsby clear and convincing evidence.

Astothefirstandsecondprongs,whichareinterrelated

 

andoverlap,N.J.Div.ofYouth&FamilyServs.v.R.L.,388

 

N.J.Super.81,88(App.Div.2006),certif.denied,190N.J.

 

257 (2007),the judge madeextensivefindingsregarding defendant'slong-standingsubstanceabuseproblem. Following hisbirth,thechildinquestionsufferedwithdrawalsymptoms dueto defendant's useof opiatesandotherillegalsubstances during herpregnancy, leadingto thechild'sremovalfrom defendant'scare. MotherandchildwerereunitedinFebruary

2009 whiledefendant wasparticipating in Straight andNarrow's MommyandMeProgram,butthechildwasagainremovedin September 2011due to a positive drugscreenwhiledefendant participated in anotherprogram. Notwithstanding, defendant was againreunitedwithheryoungestchildinDecember2011,after sheenteredaRenaissanceHouseprogram. Defendant,however, failedtofollowtheprogram'srulesandwasasked to leavewhen sherelapsedonan overnight pass. Consequently,thechild was removedforathirdtimeandplacedinfostercareinApril

2012,whereheremainstodate. Thejudgeadditionallyfound defendant "hasfailed to consistentlycomplywith Division services, to address herlong-term drug addictionorto demonstrate stability,including appropriatehousingand employment"notonlyduringthefiveyearssincethebirthof thechildin questionbut alsoforthemore thantwenty years defendant has been involvedwiththe Division.

We lastly refer to the judge's findings on the fourth prong,whichrequiresafindingthattermination"willnotdo

moreharmthangood." N.J.S.A.30:4C-15.1(a)(4). Thejudge

 

recognizedthataDivisionexpert,Dr.MarkSinger,testified thechildhadformed"dualattachments"tobothdefendantand hisfoster mother,afact Dr.Singer foundwas unsurprising consideringthechild'sageandhistoryofmultipleremovals. ThejudgereliedonDr.Singer'sconclusionthat"despitethe dualattachmentsandthefactthat[thechild]wouldsuffer greatharmifremovedfromthecareofhisbiologicalmother, [the fostermother]isable tomitigatethatharm...whereas [defendant]isnotlikelytobecomeaviableparentingoption for[thechild]noworintheforeseeablefuture." Thejudge also observed that the defense expert,Dr. Gerard A.Figurelli, acknowledged the foster mother "possesses the capacity to providethetypeofparentingandtoaccessthetypesof

servicesthatwouldbeappropriatetoattempttomitigatethe loss[thechild]wouldexperienceifseveredfromhismother, andthatatransitiontothecareof[defendant]isunlikely givenherlongstandingandunaddressedsubstanceabuseissues and non-compliance with Divisionservices." Inthis regard, the judge concluded:

[A]fterproviding[defendant]withyearsof

services, as of the date of trial, all the experts agreed that she has yetto achieve sufficientstabilitytoresumethecareof her son, and as a result there is no prospect of [defendant] being able to provideasafe and appropriatehome for [the child] in theforeseeable future. It is important to note that although Dr. Figurellidoes notoutwardlyassertthat thereisnoprospectof[defendant]being ableto parent in theforeseeable future,he does assert that she would have to be compliantwithservicesand remain drug-free to provide a safe and appropriate home for [thechild].Giventhelasttwenty(20) yearsofDivisioninvolvement,especially thelastfive(5)yearssince[the child's] birth, it isclear that[defendant's] substance abuseissues have andwill remain unaddressed. As a result,this [c]ourt rejectsDr.Figurelli's opinionthat [defendant]should be givenmoretime.

 

Furthermore, terminating the parental rights of [defendant] will afford [the child] thepermanencyandstabilitythat he needsanddeservesinhiscurrentfoster home becausedespite experiencingharm anda greatsenseoflossif removed from his mother, Dr. Singer testified that every day thislitigationcontinues,it isastruggle for this child. Thus, as theSupreme Court hasrecentlyre-affirmed,achild'srightto

know thathe orshe has a permanent home is "critical"tohisor heremotional development. [N.J.Div.ofYouth&FamilyServs.v.]F.M.,211 N.J.420, 453 (2012).

 

. . . .

 

Given [defendant's] prognosis,[the child's]strongneed forclosurein this matter, and the fact that there is absolutely no basis in the record to delay permanency for [the child] any longer,this [c]ourtconcludestheDivisionhasclearly and convincinglysatisfiedprongfour[.]

 

Ourstandardofreviewislimited. InreGuardianshipof

 

J.N.H.,172N.J.440,472(2002). Becauseajudge'sfindings

 

"are consideredbindingonappealwhen supportedby adequate, substantial andcredible evidence," we onlydisturbfactual findings when "manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with competent,relevantandreasonablycredibleevidenceasto

offendtheinterestsofjustice." RovaFarmsResort,Inc.v.

 

InvestorsIns.Co.ofAm.,65N.J.474,484(1974);seealso

 

N.J.Div.ofYouth&FamilyServs.v.G.L.,191N.J.596,605

 

(2007);Cesarev.Cesare,154N.J.394,412(1998);N.J.Div.of

 

Youth&FamilyServs.v.C.S.,367N.J.Super.76,112(App.

 

Div.),certif.denied,180N.J.456(2004). Inaddition,we

 

defertothefamilycourt's"specialexpertiseinthefieldof

 

domestic relations." Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 412. The

 

judge'sfindingsoneachofthefourprongs,whichwehaveonly brieflyrecounted,arefullysupportedbytheevidencethejudge

foundcredible. We,thus,affirmsubstantiallyforthereasons set forth in Judge Wigler'sthoughtful written opinion.

Affirmed.