Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5099-13T4 DOCKET NO. A-5100-13T4
06-03-2015
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. L.C. and J.F., Defendants-Appellants. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.C. AND C.C., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant L.C. (Rhonda J. Panken, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant J.F. (Robert W. Ratish, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting 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 (Caitlin McLaughlin, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes, Ashrafi, and O'Connor. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FG-02-097-13. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant L.C. (Rhonda J. Panken, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant J.F. (Robert W. Ratish, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting 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 (Caitlin McLaughlin, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
We consolidate these appeals to address the issues raised by the parties. Defendants J.F. (mother) and L.C. (father) are the biological parents of two boys ages eight and six years old. Defendants appeal from the judgment of the Family Part granting the guardianship petitions filed by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) thereby terminating their parental rights over their sons. Both defendants argue the Division failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the four-prong standard codified by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). J.F. also argues the trial court erred by permitting one of the Division's witnesses to testify at trial despite failing to sequester the witness during the course of the trial.
We reject these arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Margaret M. Foti in her memorandum of opinion dated June 13, 2014. In lieu of reciting at length the evidence presented by the Division at trial in support of its petitions for guardianship, we incorporate by reference Judge Foti's factual findings because they are supported by competent evidence presented at trial. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448-49 (2012). We make only the following brief comments.
The record is replete with evidence that J.F. has physically and emotionally abused her sons. She has been diagnosed with Impulse Control Disorder, Anxiety Disorder NOS, Panic Disorder, and Personality Disorder with borderline, narcissistic, and antisocial traits. Before deciding to seek the termination of her parental rights, the Division offered J.F. anger management classes, psychological services in the form of group therapy, and psychiatric treatment in the form of medication to control her anxiety, depression, and mood swings. Regrettably, none of these services proved effective in reducing J.F.'s propensity to harm her children, both physically and emotionally. As a result, the Division was compelled to take legal custody of the children and take additional measures to prevent J.F. from having unsupervised access to her sons.
After considerable efforts by the Division to provide J.F. with services to address these issues, on May 22, 2012, J.F. stipulated to abusing and neglecting her sons. Because the Division did not present any evidence of abuse or neglect against L.C. at that time, Judge Foti entered an order awarding physical custody of the children to him, provided he would not permit J.F. to reside with him and the children. Unfortunately, this arrangement proved to be short lived and ultimately detrimental to the children's best interest.
On May 23, 2012, the Division removed the children from L.C.'s custody after a caseworker discovered he had permitted J.F. to spend the night in the home with the children. A psychologist who evaluated L.C. opined he was "a passive, dependent adult with a history of poor judgment." The psychologist found L.C. was "emotionally dependent on [J.F.] and at risk for prematurely reconciling with her." The children were subsequently placed with their maternal grandmother.
The children exhibited clear signs of psychological harm due to their exposure to their parents' dysfunctional lifestyle. The oldest boy was hospitalized for two weeks for acting out in a potentially self-injurious manner and expressing suicidal ideations. L.C. refused to allow his oldest son to receive psychiatric medication, despite the treating psychiatrist's diagnosis that the child suffered from a psychiatric disorder requiring pharmacological treatment. This ultimately required an order from Judge Foti authorizing the Division to administer the prescribed medication to the child. L.C. also steadfastly refused to participate in the services offered by the Division.
At the guardianship trial, the Division presented the testimony of psychologist Dr. Frank J. Dyer who evaluated both defendants. Dr. Dyer diagnosed J.F. with depressive and anxiety disorders, and personality disorder with borderline and dependent features. Dr. Dyer concluded L.C. has an alcohol abuse problem and suffers from a personality disorder with borderline and paranoid features. Dr. Dyer found both defendants were unfit to parent these children. Their psychiatric illnesses and history of physical violence placed the children in an unsafe environment both physically and psychologically.
Dr. Dyer also conducted a bonding evaluation of the children. He found the oldest boy has been traumatized by exposure to domestic violence involving his parents and by physical abuse at the hands of his mother. Dr. Dyer reached a similar conclusion with respect to the younger boy. He found this child had been traumatized by the same environment that proved deleterious to his older brother.
Judge Foti's opinion tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), accords with In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999), In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 ( 1999), New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986), and New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. S.A., 382 N.J. Super. 525 (App. Div. 2006), and is supported by substantial and credible evidence in the record. F.M., supra, 211 N.J. at 448-49. The Division presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof. The record supports Judge Foti's determination that the Division made reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification and explored alternatives to termination. J.F.'s argument with respect to Judge Foti's decision denying J.F.'s request to sequester a Division caseworker under N.J.R.E. 615 lacks 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