Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5013-14T3
04-18-2016
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. R.M.M., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF N.R.F.-M., R.M.F., and J.J.F., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Joseph F. Kunicki, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Julie B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors N.R.F.-M. and R.M.F. (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor J.J.F. (James J. Gross, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Haas and Manahan. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FG-08-35-14. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Joseph F. Kunicki, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Julie B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors N.R.F.-M. and R.M.F. (Karen A. Lodeserto, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor J.J.F. (James J. Gross, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant R.M.M. appeals from the June 25, 2015 Family Part order, terminating her parental rights to her three children, N.R.F.-M., born in 2004, R.M.F., born in 2005, and J.J.F., born in 2008. She argues that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) did not prove the first prong of the termination statute, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Samuel J. Ragonese, Jr., in his oral opinion issued at the conclusion of the guardianship trial.
Referring to N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1), defendant argues that "the court erred in finding that the parental relationship endangered the health, safety[,] or development of the children." Defendant does not challenge the judge's findings on the remaining three prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). --------
The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's opinion. A summary will suffice here. Defendant suffers from serious mental health and substance abuse issues. As a result, she was unable to safely parent her children. Defendant often allowed her children to stay overnight with her cousin and her cousin's husband. One of the children told a therapist that these two individuals had sexually abused him. The therapist contacted the Division. After investigating the allegation and determining that all three children had been the victims of sexual abuse, the Division removed the children from defendant's care in March 2012.
The children were severely traumatized by the abuse. For example, a Division family service specialist testified that N.R.F.-M. and R.M.F. were currently in a treatment home together because their current "behaviors . . . require[d] a higher level of care than a traditional foster home could provide." These behaviors included "sexually acting out[,] . . . urinating inappropriately, writing on the walls, [and] destroying property." The specialist also reported that R.M.F. had "tr[ied] to hump [N.R.F.-M.] and expos[ed] himself[,]" and that N.R.F.-M. and R.M.F. had "throw[n] a dog down the steps" and, on another occasion, had tried to choke a dog. The specialist testified that J.J.F., who had been placed in a separate treatment home, "acted out with the foster parents' dog by trying to stick a pencil in its anus"; "masterbate[d] with the one stuffed animal that he had"; and attempted to disrobe with another student on the back of a school bus.
The Division's expert psychologist testified without contradiction that defendant was currently unable to safely parent her children and would not be able do so in the foreseeable future. Defendant had not complied with the services offered by the Division. She continued to use marijuana on a daily basis, which negatively affected her judgment and ability to care for three children with extensive behavioral issues.
In January 2014, defendant moved to Michigan. The Division provided her with round-trip bus tickets so that she could visit the children each month. After November 2014, however, she only visited the children two times. Defendant did not appear at the guardianship trial.
The Division's expert testified that, although all three children "shared attachments" with defendant, these attachments were "ambivalent and insecure." The expert opined that, while the children would suffer "some sense of loss from the[ir] separation" from defendant, the termination of defendant's parental rights "would not cause more harm them good" because it would "free [the children] for adoption[.]"
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. We defer to his expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412-13 (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.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION