DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. R.W and M.W. and J.P

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

R.W.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

M.W. and J.P.,

Defendants.

______________________________

IN THE MATTER OF I.P.,

Minor.

______________________________

January 8, 2016

June 20, 2016

Resubmitted April 28, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Hoffman and Whipple.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FN-03-193-13.

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

Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa D. Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Hannah F. Edman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Linda Vele Alexander, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Rhonda,1 appealed from August 1, and October 1, 2014 Family Part orders terminating litigation under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 without a G.M.2 dispositional hearing and allowing the filing of a guardianship complaint without including Rhonda as a party. We affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the matter to the Family Part for a determination of whether or not a bonding evaluation should have been granted in order to address Rhonda's psychological parent status regarding the child in question, Ian. We retained jurisdiction.

On April 14, 2016, a remand hearing was conducted and Rhonda appeared with counsel. After the testimony of two witnesses and considering the arguments of counsel, the trial judge determined that a bonding evaluation between Rhonda and Ian would have been harmful to the child, and therefore declined to order such an evaluation. Subsequent to our receipt of the trial judge's opinion, the parties were offered the opportunity to submit additional briefs addressing the issue. No party submitted briefs.

For the reasons expressed by the trial judge in her April 25, 2016 opinion we affirm the termination of the Title Nine litigation.

Affirmed.

1 We use pseudonyms to protect the identity of the parties.

2 N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382, 401-405 (2009).