DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. N.W.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

N.W.,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF N.Y.B. and T.J.B., minors.

___________________________________

December 9, 2015

Submitted November 4, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FG-04-151-14.

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

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (AndreaM. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Michelle D. Perry-Thompson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (James J. Gross, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant N.W. (Nancy)1 appeals the order terminating her parental rights to two of her children. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

Nancy is the mother of N.Y.B. (Natalie) and T.J.B. (Tim). More than ten years before Natalie's birth, referrals were received by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) regarding Nancy's older child, which resulted in the child being removed from her care, due to Nancy's substance abuse and lack of parenting skills. Through the years, Nancy was uncooperative when offered services by the Division, and as of April 2011, she had not attended the court-ordered substance abuse treatment and parenting skills training. Several days after Natalie's birth in September 2011, a referral was received regarding Nancy's refusal to obtain the proper medical treatment for her newborn, following which Natalie was removed from Nancy's care and placed with her grandmother.

Nancy tested positive for marijuana and PCP at substance abuse assessments over the next few months but did complete an outpatient substance abuse program in March 2012, following which custody was transferred back to her in June.

After Tim was born in August 2012, he tested positive for PCP and was in the neonatal intensive care unit due to his premature birth. Although Nancy denied drug use, she also tested positive for PCP. At a hearing in August, the judge found the removal of the children necessary due to Nancy's history of drug abuse, noting her PCP relapse after Natalie was returned to her custody in June. She was ordered to undergo a substance abuse evaluation and random drug screenings.

Over the next year Nancy failed to attend substance abuse evaluations and treatment. While at a drug treatment facility in September 2013, Nancy's erratic behavior resulted in her discharge from the program. A psychological evaluation prepared by Janet Cahill, Ph.D., found that Nancy displayed symptoms of bipolar disorder. The recommendation was that the children not be returned to her until she fully cooperated with services and demonstrated sobriety for several months. Nancy lost her apartment for non-payment of rent and tested positive for PCP in October 2013. She missed or cancelled many visitation appointments with her children, and when she did attend, the caseworker noted that she exhibited poor parenting skills.

In June 2014, a court-ordered psychologist, Linda Jeffrey, Ph.D., opined the following after her evaluation: "[Nancy's] adjustment, mood dysregulation, personality disorder and substance abuse/dependence problems are likely to adversely affect and decrease her parenting capacity to provide a minimal level of safe parenting." "She is likely to be impulsive and to show poor parenting judgment." Jeffrey concluded that Nancy was "not prepared to provide safe, stable, reliable or responsible parenting for her children" and that placing the children with their mother would put them at risk of harm. Finally, Jeffrey recommended that, as the children did not have an attachment to Nancy, but rather were bonded to and comfortable with their grandmother, they should remain in the grandmother's care.

On January 21, 2015, Judge Linda G. Baxter terminated the parental rights of Nancy as to both Natalie and Tim. It is from that order that Nancy now appeals.

N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) authorizes the Division to petition 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.

The trial judge carefully considered each of these prongs and cited adequate, substantial evidence in the record to support her conclusion that each of the prongs had been proven by clear and convincing evidence.

"The scope of [our] review of a trial court's fact-finding function is limited. The general rule is that findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998). Particular deference should be given to a trial judge's credibility determinations and to "the family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise." Id. at 413. Unless the trial judge's factual findings are "so wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made" they should not be disturbed, even if the reviewing court would not have made the same decision. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (quoting C.B. Snyder Realty, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 233 N.J. Super. 65, 69 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 117 N.J. 165 (1989)).

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

Affirmed.

1 We use pseudonyms to refer to the individuals in this case for the purposes of confidentiality and clarity.