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

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-0

A-5328-12T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

D.L. and A.B.,

Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF C.B. AND J.B.,

Minors.

___________________________________

March 11, 2014

Submitted: February 26, 2014 Decided:

Before Judges Fuentes, Simonelli and Haas.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FG-20-52-11.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant D.L. (David Gies, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant A.B. (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

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

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In these two consolidated cases, defendants A.B. and D.L. appeal from the June 14, 2013 judgment of guardianship, which terminated their parental rights to their daughter, C.B., born in September 2008, and A.B.'s parental rights to her son, J.B., born in January 2010.1 Defendants contend that plaintiff New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a by clear and convincing evidence. After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, and in light of prevailing legal standards and the arguments presented, we affirm.

We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendants. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge Camille Kenny's thirty-seven page written opinion. We add only the following comments.

We are satisfied that commencing with the Division's first contact with A.B. in September 2005 and with D.L. in January 2011, and continuing up to the start of the trial in January 2013, the Division provided multiple opportunities for defendants to reunify with their children and address the deficiencies that rendered them unable to safely parent their children. None of these interventions proved successful.

Judge Kenny 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. The judge found that A.B.'s "cognitive limitations and neurological condition are not subject to remediation." Thus, A.B. cannot safely parent the children alone and, in the past, selected inappropriate caregivers to assist her, who placed the children at a risk of serious harm.

After he was identified as C.B.'s father, D.L. was incarcerated and, upon his release, failed "to take the necessary steps to reunify with" C.B. D.L. did not visit his daughter, provide financial support, or attend therapy and parental counseling. Judge Kenny found that "despite the Division's encouragement, assistance with a train pass, and offers to arrange a more convenient location when he moved[, D.L.] preferred to accept the train pass and not attend counseling."

The judge determined that the Division provided A.B. "with a plethora of services throughout this litigation" and that "[t]here are no other identifiable services that can change or improve [A.B.'s] cognition." The judge also found that D.L. "was afforded additional, perhaps excessive, time to address his deficits with services upon his release from incarceration[.]" However, D.L. "failed to take advantage of them." The judge found that "[t]he Division explored and assessed numerous relative resources for possible placement of" the children, but rejected them for valid reasons.

Based upon the uncontroverted expert testimony presented at trial, Judge Kenny concluded that C.B. and J.B. were bonded with their foster parents and "there was nothing presented at trial to suggest that these children will be harmed in any significant way by severing [defendants'] parental ties." On the other hand, severing the children's bond with their foster parents "would cause enduring harm to the children that could not be mitigated by" defendants.

Judge Kenny's 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 affirm substantially for the reasons the judge expressed in her comprehensive and well-reasoned written opinion.

Affirmed.

1 J.B.'s father is J.T., whose parental rights to the child were also terminated on June 14, 2013. J.T. has not appealed this decision. A.B. has another daughter, K.B., born in September 2005, who was not part of the litigation and who is now in the custody of her father, A.S.