Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4996-13T2 DOCKET NO. A-4997-13T2
06-10-2015
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.I. and M.R., Defendants-Appellants, and T.C., M.C., Sr., C.T., and J.R., Defendants. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF G.R., A.C., M.C., Jr., and J.I., minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant A.I. (Albert M. Afonso, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant M.R. (Marc D. Pereira, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Tarabeth LeFurge, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors G.R., A.C., M.C., Jr. and J.I. (James J. Gross, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Haas. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FG-09-147-12. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant A.I. (Albert M. Afonso, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant M.R. (Marc D. Pereira, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Tarabeth LeFurge, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors G.R., A.C., M.C., Jr. and J.I. (James J. Gross, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant parents A.I. and M.R. appeal from a May 30, 2014 order terminating their parental rights. We affirm in both appeals, substantially for the reasons stated by the Family Part judge in her comprehensive oral opinion issued on May 30, 2014.
On this appeal, our review of the Family Part judge's decision is limited. We will defer to the judge's findings so long as they are supported by sufficient credible evidence. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.J.D., 428 N.J. Super. 451, 476-77 (App. Div. 2012). In our review, we owe particular deference to the judge's expertise and her credibility determinations. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412-13 (1998).
Because the trial judge issued a thorough opinion which was well-supported by the evidence, we need add little to her discussion. See M.M., supra, 189 N.J. at 279; R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). In brief summary, M.R. is the mother of two girls and two boys, ranging in ages from four years old to almost twelve. A.I. is the father of only the youngest child, J.I. (Jesse), who was born in April 2010. The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) and the Law Guardian presented the only trial evidence, which clearly established that both parents are unfit, with no prospect of becoming fit in the foreseeable future.
We use a pseudonym to protect the child's privacy.
The mother suffers from drug and alcohol addiction and mental illness. She has repeatedly become involved with abusive men, who pose a risk to her children. Before living with A.I., she became involved with M.C., a child molester, whom she allowed to babysit for her children. M.C. also physically abused her. The mother's next paramour, A.I., was physically and emotional abusive and controlling. On one occasion, A.I. locked the mother and the children in their apartment. They could not escape by themselves and had to be rescued by the police.
The Division made extensive but unfortunately unsuccessful efforts to provide both parents with services. The mother refused to accept many of the services offered to her. A.I. refused to go for therapy to address his heroin addiction and domestic violence issues, despite admitting that he used drugs and committed domestic violence. He also refused to appear for a psychological evaluation. Both parents repeatedly refused to undergo court-ordered drug testing. A.I. rarely attended scheduled visits with his son. Defendants were still living together at the time of the guardianship trial.
The parents missed the first two days of the guardianship trial. They appeared for the third day, but they left and did not return after the judge directed them each to submit to a drug test.
--------
The children have been in foster care since 2010. The girls are in one foster home and the boys are in another. Each set of foster parents wishes to adopt their respective foster children. A Division case worker testified that the girls have an affectionate relationship with their mother, but they realize that she cannot take care of them and are willing to be adopted. According to unrebutted expert testimony, the girls' foster family would be able to mitigate any harm they would suffer from the termination of their relationship with their mother, and the girls' need for a permanent home is paramount to their well- being. The boys do not have a close relationship with their mother, but they have a very close relationship with their foster parents. Jesse has no parent-child bond with A.I. Both boys would be profoundly harmed if they were separated from their foster parents.
On this appeal, M.R. contends that the Division failed to prove the four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(a). Those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
A.I. argues that in deciding that the Division satisfied the first prong of the best interests test, the trial judge improperly considered factual findings made in an earlier Title 9 case. Title 9 findings which are made by a preponderance of the evidence cannot be imported into a Title 30 case, in which the burden of proof is by clear and convincing evidence. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v A.L., 213 N.J. 1, 22-25 (2013); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v R.D., 207 N.J. 88, 119-21 (2011).
In her opinion, the trial judge did briefly refer to the fact that A.I. abused the children "as was found by the Court on a Fact Finding proceeding on July 27, 2011." That comment referred to the incident in which A.I. locked the mother and children in the house. However, that incident was the subject of testimony at the guardianship trial, and thus we do not infer that the judge based her factual finding in the guardianship decision on a prior finding in the Title 9 case.
Moreover, in her opinion the judge also found that A.I. refused to "complete the batterer's intervention," continued to use illegal drugs, refused to participate in drug treatment, and only visited his son sporadically. The record contains undisputed evidence to support the judge's findings, and in fact, A.I. admitted those things. Consequently, even if the judge erred in referring to the Title 9 findings, the error was harmless.
There is ample evidence in the record to support the judge's finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of both defendants' parental rights is in the children's best interests.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION