DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. C.S.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-04067-15T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

C.S.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF A.L.S., a minor.

_________________________________

January 30, 2017

Submitted January 18, 2017 Decided

Before Judges Koblitz and Rothstadt.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FG-08-49-15.

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

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Alicia Y. Bergman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant C.S. appeals from a May 9, 2016 Family Part order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, A.L.S., who is now three years old. The child's biological mother lives in Florida, her parental rights were terminated by default, and she does not appeal. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Timothy Chell in his thorough, twenty-nine-page opinion issued with the order.

A summary of the evidence will suffice. A.L.S.'s mother, who abused drugs, had an extensive history with the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division). Both mother and daughter tested positive for benzodiazepines at the time of the child's birth. Defendant had an extensive criminal history that included drug charges, burglary, theft and periods of failed probation and drug court participation. Defendant initially expressed an interest in doing whatever was necessary to gain custody of his child, but by February 2014, a month after his daughter was born, he became incarcerated and remained so until later in 2015 when he was paroled. While he was incarcerated, the Division made efforts to contact him. When defendant was released through the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP), the Division arranged visitation for him, although defendant only attended the visits sporadically and the child reacted badly to the visits. Eventually, therapeutic visitation was instituted along with transportation assistance and other services. Defendant was able to secure a job and a room in a boarding house with his girlfriend at the time of the guardianship trial, when the child had already been in the care of her resource family for almost two years.

In anticipation of trial, defendant underwent psychological and bonding evaluations. At the time of his child's birth, defendant was addicted to drugs, but at the time of the evaluations, he had been drug free for over a year. ISP monitored his drug use scrupulously. The Division's psychologist opined that defendant could not serve as a safe, effective custodial parent in the foreseeable future and, based on defendant's history and diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, recidivism and relapse were likely. Bonding evaluations conducted by Division and Law Guardian experts revealed that the child had no bond with defendant, but was securely bonded to her resource parents. They opined that separating her from the resource parents would cause her harm that the father could not mitigate. Defendant offered no contrary expert opinion at trial. He testified regarding his ability to offer a stable home to his daughter, but the judge found him not to be credible.

In his written opinion, Judge Chell found by clear and convincing evidence 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 child'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 substantial credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth and 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.

Defendant contends 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.