Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3580-14T2
02-18-2016
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. E.F., Defendant-Appellant, and D.C. and W.S., Defendants. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.M.F., Minor.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (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; Lisa J. Rusciano, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor J.M.F. (Nancy P. Fratz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Whipple. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-221-14. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (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; Lisa J. Rusciano, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor J.M.F. (Nancy P. Fratz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant E.F. appeals from a March 4, 2015 order terminating her parental rights to her son J.M.F., who was born in December 2012. We affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Linda Lordi Cavanaugh in her comprehensive thirty-four page written opinion issued with the order. We add these brief comments.
The evidence is set forth at length in Judge Cavanaugh's opinion and need not be repeated here in detail. Defendant has a severe mental illness for which she has persistently refused treatment. There is no dispute on this record that she cannot care for the child. Despite the best efforts of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division), the child's father remains unknown. A paternity test ruled out one individual whom defendant named, a second individual failed to appear for a paternity test, and despite a lengthy search, the Division could not find any of the other men whom defendant stated might have been the child's father. Neither of defendant's sisters were able to care for J.M.F. The child has never lived with defendant, and has no bond with her. On the other hand, the child has bonded with his foster parent, Ms. L., who is now his psychological parent and is prepared to adopt him.
The State presented unrebutted expert testimony that defendant had a longstanding history of paranoid schizophrenia, with a pattern of refusing to take psychiatric medication. The expert opined that she could not safely care for a child, and was unlikely to become a fit parent in the foreseeable future. Defendant testified at the trial, and was clearly still suffering from the effects of mental illness. On her behalf, her attorney conceded that she was unable to care for the child.
After hearing all of the evidence, Judge Cavanaugh found that the Division had satisfied all four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). She concluded that termination of defendant's parental rights was in the child's best interests.
On this appeal, defendant presents the following point:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD WILL BE SERVED BY TERMINATING E.F.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE DCPP FAILED TO ESTABLISH BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TOWARDS REUNIFICATION.
Defendant argues that the Division made insufficient efforts at reunification, because it should have tried harder to locate the possible fathers whom defendant named. She also contends the Division should have done more to persuade one of her sisters to care for the child, although they both told the Division they were unable to do so. Her arguments are not supported by the record and are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Judge Cavanaugh's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448-49 (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION