NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. V.C.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

A-6179-10T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF

YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES,1

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

V.C. AND G.C.,

Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________

IN THE MATTER OF AN.C., C.C.,

I.C., L.C., AND AI.C.,

Minors.

_____________________________

May 28, 2014

Before Judges Simonelli and Haas.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, Docket No. FN-16-0160-09.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant V.C. (Brian W. Donnelly, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant G.C. (Anthony J. Vecchio, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

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

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Christopher A. Huling, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this Title 9 matter, defendant V.C., the biological father of five children, and defendant G.C. the biological mother, appeal from the March 3, 2011 permanency order, which approved the plan of plaintiff New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (Division) to terminate their parental rights to the children.2 On appeal, V.C. contends his conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence or recklessness required for a finding of abuse or neglect, and the trial judge abused his discretion by pre-judging the case against him.

G.C. contends that the judge erred in entering the permanency order without a finding or stipulation that she abused or neglected the children and without holding a dispositional hearing. She also contends the judge should have recused himself.

We discern no abuse of discretion whatsoever in this case or need for the judge's recusal. We have considered defendants' remaining contentions in light of the record and applicable legal principles and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we make the following brief comments.

The Division substantiated abuse or neglect against defendants as a result of a domestic violence incident between defendants that occurred in the children's presence on March 8, 2009. At a fact-finding hearing on August 26, 2009, V.C. stipulated that he committed an act of domestic violence against G.C. in the children's presence, and that his conduct could have caused a risk of harm to the children. G.C. waived a fact-finding hearing as well as her right to challenge the substantiation of abuse or neglect.

Following a five-day permanency hearing, during which the trial judge interviewed the children, in a March 3, 2011 oral opinion, the judge made detailed factual findings and determined that defendants had abused or neglected the children. The judge found that: the parties had a history of domestic violence that occurred in the children's presence; G.C. physically and emotionally abused the children and "grossly" neglected them; G.C. and V.C. educationally and medically neglected the children; V.C. maintained contact with G.C. despite the domestic violence and abuse of her and the children; and V.C. could not provide an appropriate home for the children. The record amply supports the judge's findings, and there is no reason to disturb the judge's decision. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.L., 201 N.J. 210, 226 (2010).

Affirmed.

1 On June 29, 2012, the Governor signed into law A-3101, which reorganizes the Department of Children and Families, which includes the renaming of the Division as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. L. 2012, c. 16, eff. June 29, 2012.

2 Defendants also appeal from the July 6, 2011 order, which terminated the Title 9 litigation and permitted the Division to proceed to seek the termination of their parental rights. Although the Division instituted a Title 30 action, the court dismissed the complaint on May 30, 2012, reactivated the Title 9 matter, and returned the children to G.C. Accordingly, defendants' appeal from the July 6, 2011 order is moot.