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

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                        NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5529-16T3


NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

J.O.,

        Defendant-Appellant,

and

R.F.,

     Defendant.
_________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF M.A.G., a minor.
_________________________________

              Submitted May 8, 2018 – Decided May 23, 2018

              Before Judges Gilson and Mitterhoff.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex
              County, Docket No. FG-12-0066-17.
          Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
          for appellant (Christine B. Mowry, Designated
          Counsel, on the brief).

          Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
          for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
          Attorney General, of counsel; Janice Venables,
          Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

          Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
          Guardian, attorney for minor (Todd Wilson,
          Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

     The mother of a child appeals from an August 1, 2017 judgment

terminating her parental rights and granting guardianship of the

child to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division)

with the plan that the child be adopted.       The father gave an

identified surrender of his parental rights in 2017.    The child's

law guardian and the Division urge that we affirm the judgment and

allow the adoption to proceed.       Having reviewed the record in

light of the applicable law, we affirm for the reasons explained

by Judge Michael J. Nelson in his comprehensive opinion read into

the record on August 1, 2017.

     The facts and evidence are detailed in Judge Nelson's opinion,

which he rendered after a three-day trial.    Accordingly, we need

only summarize some of the relevant facts.

     The Division became involved with the family the day after

the child's birth in February 2015.    In that regard, the Division


                                 2                          A-5529-16T3
received a referral from the hospital that the mother tested

positive for marijuana and admitted to smoking marijuana during

her pregnancy.      Shortly thereafter, the Division also received a

referral that the mother had threatened to kill the child.

     Concerned about the potential harm to the child posed by the

mother's   mental    health   issues   and   marijuana     use,   a    safety

protection plan was entered in March 2015, requiring all of the

mother's contact with the child to be supervised.          The court also

ordered her to comply with recommendations of substance abuse

evaluations,   counseling,    medication     monitoring,    and   parenting

skills training.     The mother, however, violated the plan and court

order by having unsupervised contact with the child, failing to

cooperate with services, and failing to take her medication.

     As part of its involvement with the family, the Division

visited the mother's home in April 2015.          Initially, the mother

did not allow the Division workers to enter.             Once the workers

were let into the home, they observed that the mother was with the

child unsupervised.     Throughout the visit, the mother was largely

uncooperative and became violent.        Specifically, the mother was

yelling and throwing things, and broke one of the child's toys.

Ultimately, the Division contacted the police and conducted an

emergent removal of the child.



                                   3                                  A-5529-16T3
     Both before and after the removal of the child, the Division

provided     the   mother   with     various    services,    including     MICA

treatment, in-home assistance, medication monitoring, parenting

skills training, and individual counseling.              The mother failed to

complete most of the recommended services, and she continued to

use marijuana.     The Division also enrolled her in a Mommy and Me

program.     The mother's behavior at the program was volatile and

hostile, and she was discharged from the program for noncompliance.

     The Division arranged for a psychological evaluation of the

mother.    The evaluation disclosed that the mother suffered from

cannabis disorder, bipolar disorder, impulse control disorder, and

post-traumatic stress disorder.        The assessment also revealed that

she had a significant history of antisocial personality behaviors,

including aggressiveness and impulsivity. The psychologist opined

that the mother could not independently care for the child.

     A three-day guardianship trial was conducted in July 2017.

The Division presented testimony from two workers and an expert

in psychology and child bonding.               The Division also submitted

numerous documents into evidence.           The mother testified and called

two witnesses to testify concerning her behavior as a mother.

     Based    on   the   testimony    and    evidence,    Judge   Nelson   made

detailed findings.       In making those findings, he relied on the



                                       4                               A-5529-16T3
testimony by the Division workers and the Division's expert, all

of whom he found to be credible.

       Judge Nelson then addressed the four prongs of the best

interests of the child test.         
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a).     Under prong

one,     he    found   that   the   mother's    continued   marijuana    use,

unsupervised contact with the child, and refusal to take medication

for her mental health issues presented a risk of harm to the

child's safety, health, and development.

       Turning to the second prong, Judge Nelson found that the

mother was unable or unwilling to eliminate the harm facing the

child.        In that regard, he noted that she: refused to accept

treatment for her substance abuse; failed to consistently take

medication for her mental health issues; failed to complete an

inpatient program; failed to participate in MICA treatment; and

did not comply with court orders.           He also noted that the mother

violated the safety protection plan on multiple occasions by having

unsupervised contact with the child.

       Under prong three, Judge Nelson found that the Division made

reasonable efforts to reunify the mother with the child and

provided ample services to the mother.             He also found that the

Division       had   extensively    explored,   but   properly   ruled   out,

placement of the child with other family members.



                                        5                            A-5529-16T3
       Finally,    relying    on   the   uncontroverted    testimony        of   the

Division's expert, Judge Nelson concluded that termination of

parental rights would not do more harm than good.               He found that

the bonding evaluation between the child and the resource parents

revealed   that     the   child    viewed    his   resource   parents    as      his

psychological parents and that he had integrated into the family.

Judge Nelson noted there was a parental bond between the mother

and the child, but found that the child would be able to overcome

separation from the mother due to his age.               Significantly, Judge

Nelson found that termination of parental rights would provide the

child with needed stability.

       On appeal, the mother argues that the trial court erred in

finding that the Division presented clear and convincing evidence

of the four prongs under the best interests of the child test.                    In

essence,   the    mother     disputes    the   factual   findings     and    legal

conclusions made by the trial court.                 We disagree and affirm

substantially for the reasons explained by Judge Nelson in his

thorough opinion read into the record.

       Judge Nelson correctly summarized the law on the four prongs

of the best interests test.         
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a).      Judge Nelson

then    found     that    there    was   clear     and   convincing     evidence

establishing each of those prongs.               In particular, Judge Nelson

found that the child was entitled to stability and permanency to

                                         6                               A-5529-16T3
foster the child's development.       All of those findings are amply

supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record.      Judge

Nelson's opinion also effectively addresses each of the arguments

raised by the mother on this appeal because she does not raise

anything that Judge Nelson did not consider and evaluate.

     Affirmed.




                                  7                           A-5529-16T3