DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. M.M.J.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2959-15T3

A-2960-15T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

M.M.J. and R.H.,

Defendant-Appellant,

_________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF S.M.G.J.

and S.H., Minors.

_________________________

January 4, 2017

Submitted December 13, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-179-14.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant M.M.J. (Robert W. Ratish, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney forappellant R.H.(Grace Eisenberg, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jodie E. Van Wert, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for minors (Joseph H. Ruiz, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendants, mother, M.M.J.1 (Mary) and father of S.H., R.H. (Robert), appeal from a March 4, 2016 Family Part order. The order terminated Mary's rights to her two daughters: S.M.G.J., who was four years old and S.H., who was two years old at the time of the guardianship trial. It also terminated Robert's rights to S.H. The parental rights of S.M.G.J.'s father had been previously terminated and he did not appeal. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by the trial judge in his March 4, 2016 oral opinion issued with the order.

A summary of the evidence will suffice. Mary did not attend the guardianship trial. The children had been in a preadoption home and both parents had surrendered their rights in favor of this resource parent. See N.J.S.A. 9:3-41(d) (providing for an identified surrender of parental rights). Unfortunately, this placement did not work out and the parents' rights were restored. The two girls are now placed together in a second home with a new resource parent who wishes to adopt them.

Mary did not visit regularly and had a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. She has been unable to comply with services. A psychiatric evaluation revealed a lack of ability to parent and a lack of parental bond with her children. S.H. was never in her custody, and S.M.G.J. was removed from her mother when she was six months old.

Robert has a lengthy criminal history, including a conviction for endangering the welfare of a child after he beat his five-year-old stepson. The judge accepted as credible the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) expert's opinion that Robert did not have the ability to parent safely and that no parental bond existed between Robert and his young daughter. The judge found the defense expert's opinion that in the future Robert might be able to learn how to parent effectively incredible and unpersuasive as a reason not to terminate Robert's parental rights.

The judge found that S.H. viewed Robert as a stranger, never having been in his custody and having had only a few supervised visits with him. Robert was incarcerated when S.H. was born.

In his opinion, the trial judge 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 defendants' 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, 412 (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 the trial judge's factual findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, his legal conclusions are unassailable.

Defendants contend that the trial court erred in finding all four prongs had been proven. Those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

1 Pseudonyms and initials are used to protect the privacy of those involved pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d)(12).