Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5307-13T2
03-13-2015
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. C.H., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Co.H., J.H., and A.H., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Stephanie Anatale, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Higbee. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket No. FG-15-14-13. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Stephanie Anatale, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
C.H. appeals from a June 27, 2014 order terminating her parental rights to three of her eight children, Co.H., born in 2005, J.H., born in 2006, and A.H., born in 2013 during litigation. C.H. has been unable to care for any of her children. The father of Co.H. and J.H. surrendered his rights. A.H.'s father never responded to the guardianship complaint: judgment against him was entered by default. The Law Guardian for the three children urges us to affirm. We do so substantially on the basis of Judge Marquis D. Jones, Jr.'s ninety-five-page written opinion, issued with the termination order.
We abbreviate the names of the parties to preserve the confidentiality of the family.
Judge Jones found that defendant has severe mental health problems, which rendered her incapable of acting as the sole parent to her children. Her 2011 testing reflected an I.Q. of sixty-three, and an overall diagnosis of "borderline cognitive functioning." The two older children have special needs requiring specialized care, which she is particularly unable to provide because she does not appreciate her own limitations and refuses to accept help. As a result, the children were neglected in a vast assortment of ways, making it clear that C.H. was unable to provide them with a minimum level of supervision or care.
C.H. went to Colorado for five months prior to trial, thereby forfeiting visits with her children. She also failed to take advantage of the transportation to court for trial provided by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division). Instead, she called in to the court and interjected inappropriate comments. The judge found that "C.H cannot adequately care for herself, let alone her children."
He found that the Division made reasonable efforts to provide her with a multitude of services, and did the best it could to search for relatives, despite her lack of cooperation. The judge also found that two of the children were bonded with foster parents and it was far too late to disrupt those bonds, even if the Division could find some relatives to serve as placement alternatives. The third child was doing well in a special resource placement. The children have no bond with C.H. Defendant did not present any expert testimony to refute the Division's expert, who opined that it was in the children's best interests to terminate C.H.'s parental rights.
In his comprehensive 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 defendant's parental rights was in the children's best interests. On this appeal, our review of the trial judge's decision is limited. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014) (citation omitted). We defer to his expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (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.
Defendant contends, contrary to the trial judge's findings, that the Division failed to prove each of the four prongs by clear and convincing evidence. Those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION