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

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 
 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

J.R.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF Ja.R.,

Minor.

__________________________________

October 20, 2016

 

Submitted October 13, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Simonelli and Carroll.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FG-12-51-16.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Arielle E. Katz, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Phyllis G. Warren, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant J.R., the biological mother of Ja.R., born in 2013, appeals from the March 9, 2016 Family Part judgment for guardianship, which terminated her parental rights to the child. On appeal, defendant contends the trial judge erred in finding that respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) proved all four prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree, and affirm.

We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendant and Ja.R. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings set forth in Judge Lorraine Pullen's March 10, 2016 written opinion. We add the following comments.

Defendant has a history of mental health issues that required several hospitalizations, a history of substance abuse and domestic violence,1 and a criminal history. She was previously involved with the Division with respect to her three older children. The court terminated her parental rights to two of the children by judgment of guardianship entered on January 3, 2011, and to the third child by judgment of guardianship entered on November 28, 2011.

Defendant again became involved with the Division in February 2013, when Ja.R. was removed from her care after she was hospitalized for mental health issues. There was a reunification in October 2013, but it failed in June 2014, when defendant tested positive for drugs. Ja.R. was returned to the foster parents who had cared for him prior to the reunification, and they want to adopt him.

Defendant's involvement with the Division after Ja.R.'s removal was marked by her lack of involvement and non-compliance with services. Significantly, she denied having a substance abuse and domestic violence problem and refused substance abuse treatment and domestic violence counseling. She was denied unsupervised visitation due to her non-compliance.

The Division's undisputed expert evidence revealed that defendant has been diagnosed with Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Amphetamine Abuse, and Depressive Disorder. She has also been diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder, a chronic mental illness which commonly requires long term, if not lifelong treatment. Defendant's mental health instability triggered unpredictable and violent behavior that posed a significant risk of harm to any child in her care. Defendant's prognosis was extremely poor, and she was not capable of parenting Ja.R. and providing him a safe and stable home now or in the foreseeable future.

The expert evidence also revealed that another failed reunification would have negative consequences for Ja.R. and would add to any trauma he may have already experienced. Further, while Ja.R. has a dual meaningful attachment to defendant and his foster parents, his foster parents are his psychological parents, and if removed from them, he will suffer emotional and behavioral harm.

Judge Pullen reviewed the evidence presented at trial, made detailed factual findings as to each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and thereafter concluded the Division met by clear and convincing evidence all of the legal requirements for a judgment of guardianship. The judge's opinion tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), accords with N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012), N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008), 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 more than amply supported by the record. F.M., supra, 211 N.J. at 448-49.
 

Affirmed.

1 At the time of trial, defendant had pending criminal charges resulting from the stabbing of her husband.