Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4534-13T2 DOCKET NO. A-4554-13T2
04-21-2015
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. R.M. and A.W., Defendants-Appellants. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF N.M. and V.M., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant R.M. (Richard A. Foster, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant A.W. (Carleen M. Steward, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jennifer K. Russo-Belles, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors N.M. and V.M. (Annemarie Sedore, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Simonelli and Leone. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Cape May County, Docket No. FG-05-0017-13. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant R.M. (Richard A. Foster, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant A.W. (Carleen M. Steward, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jennifer K. Russo-Belles, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors N.M. and V.M. (Annemarie Sedore, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant R.M. (Ruth), the biological mother of V.M. (Valerie), born in 2009, and N.M. (Nate), born in 2011, and defendant A.W. (Alan), Nate's biological father, appeal from the May 30, 2014 Family Part amended judgment of guardianship, which terminated their parental rights to their children. On appeal, defendants contend that plaintiff Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The names used in this opinion are fictitious.
The judgment also terminated the parental rights of Valerie's biological father, O.R., who executed an identified surrender to his parents. O.R. does not participate in this appeal.
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendants. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge John R. Rauh's comprehensive oral opinion rendered on May 16, 2014. We add only the following brief comments.
In addition to Valerie and Nate, Ruth is the biological mother of four children, none of whom are in her custody. The Division first became involved with the family in 2007, after receiving a referral concerning Ruth's inability and unwillingness to care for her children due to her substance abuse. Over the next four years, the Division received referrals regarding Ruth's substance abuse, homelessness, and abandonment of and inability to care for her children.
Two children are in the custody of their maternal grandmother, and two are in the custody of their respective biological fathers. These children are not involved in this appeal.
The Division was then known as the Division of Youth and Family Services.
--------
In October 2011, the Division removed Valerie and Nate from Ruth's custody, placed Valerie with her paternal grandparents, and placed Nate in a foster home. Since that time, the children have been with their respective caretakers, who want to adopt them.
Ruth stipulated that she abused or neglected Valerie and Nate by using illegal drugs while they were in her care. She also has a significant history of mental health issues, substance abuse, homelessness, domestic violence, criminal activity, and inability to safely parent her children. She visited Valerie and Nate sporadically throughout this matter, stopped visiting them approximately seven months prior to the trial, and did not provide a plan for them or a viable alternative placement option. She also failed to maintain stable housing and was combative with the Division and non-compliant with court-ordered services, including substance abuse and mental health treatment.
Alan has a significant juvenile and adult criminal history and history of substance abuse. He was incarcerated when Nate was born and remained incarcerated throughout most of this matter. He knew of the Division's involvement with Nate shortly after Nate's removal from Ruth, but did not contact the Division, offer any plan for Nate, or request services for himself or the child. When not incarcerated, he did not contact the Division, visit Nate, maintain stable housing, or comply with court-ordered services. He continued engaging in criminal activity, was re-incarcerated at the time of the trial, and did not provide a plan for Nate or viable alternative placement option.
The Division's undisputed expert psychological evidence confirmed that Ruth and Alan suffer from mental health issues that render them incapable of adequately parenting the children now or in the foreseeable future. The undisputed expert bonding evidence confirmed that termination of defendants' parental rights would not do the children more harm than good. Nate viewed Ruth and Alan as feared strangers with whom he has no emotional attachment or bond whatsoever. Valerie viewed Ruth as an occasional babysitter on whom she did not depend for protection, guidance, and nurturance. In contrast, the children have a strong and positive bond with their respective caretakers and would likely suffer permanent psychological and emotional harm if separated from them.
We are satisfied that commencing with the Division's removal of the children in October 2011, and continuing up to the trial over two years later, the Division provided multiple opportunities for defendants to reunify with their children and address the issues that led to the children's removal. None of these interventions proved successful.
Judge Rauh reviewed the evidence presented at the trial, made thorough findings as to each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and thereafter concluded the Division had met by clear and convincing evidence all of the legal requirements for an order of guardianship. The judge's opinion tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), accords with New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. T.S., 417 N.J. Super. 228 (App. Div. 2010), certif. denied, 205 N.J. 519 (2011), In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999), In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999), and New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986), and is more than amply supported by the record. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012).
We reject Ruth's contention that Judge Rauh erred in failing to consider Kinship Legal Guardianship (KLG). KLG is not an alternative to termination of parental rights where, such as here, adoption is likely and feasible. N.J. Div. Of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 558-59 (2014); N.J. Div. Of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.I., 423 N.J. Super. 127, 135 (App. Div. 2011).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION