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

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

J.D.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

L.R., S.P. and L.U.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF T.L.D., S.M.D. AND T.D.,

Minors.

_____________________________________

November 25, 2015

Submitted November 12, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Ostrer and Haas.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, Docket No. FG-01-43-13.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Patricia Nichols, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Brad M. Reiter, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Nancy P. Fratz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant J.D. appeals from the June 13, 2014 judgment of guardianship of the Family Part terminating her parental rights to her three children, Tara,1 born in 2010, Sam, born in 2012, and Tim, born in 2013.2 Defendant contends the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. She also argues that the trial judge improperly considered portions of exhibits that had been excluded from evidence. The Law Guardian supports the termination on appeal as it did before the trial court.

Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied the evidence in favor of the guardianship petition overwhelmingly supports the decision to terminate defendant's parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Jeffrey J. Waldman's thorough fifty-nine-page written opinion rendered on June 13, 2014.

We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendant. Instead, we incorporate by reference Judge Waldman's factual findings and legal conclusions. We add only the following comments.

One day after Tara's birth in May 2010, the Division received a referral that defendant was homeless and unable to care for the child. After an investigation, the Division arranged for defendant and Tara to live together in a "Mommy and Me" program. In June 2010, however, defendant left the program, and the Division removed Tara from her custody. Since that time, Tara has lived with her resource parent, J.G.

Over the next three years, the Division provided defendant with numerous services, including parenting classes, individual counseling, and psychological, psychiatric, and substance abuse evaluations. However, defendant declined to participate in most of these services and failed to complete the ones she started. Because defendant's circumstances did not improve, the Division took custody of Sam and Tim shortly after each child was born, and placed them in J.G.'s home with Tara.

The Division's expert psychologist, Dr. Jennifer Perry, diagnosed defendant with post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar II disorder, impulse control disorder, alcohol and cannabis abuse in remission, and a personality disorder not otherwise specified. Based upon Dr. Perry's testimony, Judge Waldman found that defendant's "mental health and parenting issues . . . present[ed] a substantial risk to the psychological and emotional wellbeing of her children." Because defendant failed to engage in the services provided to her by the Division, the judge concluded that she was unwilling and unable to eliminate this harm to the children.

Dr. Perry performed bonding evaluations of Tara and Sam with defendant and J.G.3 She concluded that the two children "'have both been placed with their resource mother since birth and would likely experience significant and enduring harm if they were to be separated from her.'" Dr. Perry also opined that, because of defendant's "'mental health issues, narcissistic tendencies, and parenting difficulties,' it [was] 'unlikely that [defendant] could mitigate the effects of [separation from J.G.]'"

In his comprehensive opinion, Judge Waldman found that the Division had proven all four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and that termination of defendant's parental rights was in the children's best interests. On this appeal, our review of the trial judge's decision is limited. We defer to his expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998), and we are bound by his factual findings so long as they are supported by sufficient credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J.261, 279 (2007) (citing In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)). After reviewing the record, we conclude that Judge Waldman's factual findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, his legal conclusions are unassailable.

Defendant contends that Judge Waldman erred by considering portions of exhibits that had been excluded from evidence either by agreement of the parties or by the judge's evidentiary rulings. We have carefully reviewed the exhibits and the judge's opinion and conclude that defendant's argument is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

1 We refer to the children by fictitious names to protect their identities.

2 The judgment also terminated the parental rights of Tara's putative father, L.R., and Sam and Tim's biological father, S.P. L.U. was the putative father of Tim, prior to the confirmation of S.P.'s paternity of the child. Neither L.R. nor S.P. has appealed the trial court's decision to terminate their parental rights.

3 Because Tim was only three months old when the trial commenced, Dr. Perry did not attempt to evaluate his bond with defendant or J.G.