DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. M.C.F.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

M.C.F.,

Defendant,

and

M.R.H.,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF H.B.H. and D.D.H., minors.

___________________________________

February 7, 2017

Submitted January 31, 2017 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-205-15.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors H.B.H. and D.D.H. (Rachel E. Seidman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant M.R.H. appeals from a May 2, 2016 order terminating his parental rights to his two children H.B.H. and D.D.H., who were born in November 2013. The children's Law Guardian and the Division of Child Protection and Permanency urge that we affirm the order. Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable law, we affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Wayne J. Forrest in his comprehensive forty-page written opinion issued with the order.

The history and pertinent evidence are set forth at length in Judge Forrest's opinion and need not be repeated here. A brief summary will suffice. Defendant has a longstanding substance abuse problem and multiple criminal convictions. He has been arrested and imprisoned four times since the children were born, and was serving a prison term during the guardianship trial. The children have no bond with him. The children are medically fragile and have special needs. Defendant voluntarily declined to have the children brought to visit him in prison.

The children have lived with their maternal grandmother for their entire lives. They have a parent-child bond with the grandmother, and she is prepared to adopt them.1 The children's mother executed a voluntary surrender of her parental rights in favor of the grandmother. Based on the trial evidence, Judge Forrest determined that the Division had proven all four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a).

On this appeal, defendant presents the following points of argument

THE DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROVING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION OF M.R.H. S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS REQUIRED.

(A) There was insufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court s conclusion under the second prong that the Division established by clear and convincing evidence that M.R.H. was unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the children.

(B) The Division failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence under the third prong that it made reasonable efforts to provide services to M.R.H. that would allow him to correct the circumstances that led to the children s placement with the Division.

(C) There was insufficient evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of M.R.H. s parental rights will not do more harm than good under the fourth prong.

Those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Judge Forrest's decision is supported by substantial credible evidence. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012).

Affirmed.

1 According to a Division case worker, when defendant was not incarcerated the grandmother allowed him to visit the children at her home and, although not a legally enforceable agreement, she is willing to let defendant visit the children in the future even after she adopts them.