Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4989-13T4
04-21-2015
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. T.S., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.P.S., J.K.W. and T.N.R., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant T.S. (Theodore J. Baker, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary A. Hurley, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor J.P.S. (Linda Vele Alexander, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Higbee.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 the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Docket No. FG-08-37-12. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant T.S. (Theodore J. Baker, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary A. Hurley, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor J.P.S. (Linda Vele Alexander, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
T.S. appeals from a May 20, 2014 order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, J.P.S. (fictitiously Jade), born in 2008. The Law Guardian for Jade urges us to affirm. We do so substantially on the basis of Judge Mary K. White's oral opinion.
We abbreviate the names of the parties to preserve the confidentiality of the family.
Jade's mother was heavily involved in drug use and unable to care for any of her seven children. In June 2010, while in her mother's care, Jade's younger sister was hospitalized for four days when she overdosed on methadone at the age of fourteen months. The mother's parental rights to three of her children were terminated at the same hearing, and she has not appealed.
--------
Judge White managed this case since 2010 and twice denied the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division)'s request to approve the permanency plan of termination of parental rights to allow both parents more time to comply with services. Jade never lived with her father, who has been incarcerated for most of her life, and was in jail during the termination trial. When he was not incarcerated prior to the trial, he missed visits with Jade and failed to complete court-ordered services. The Division's expert found that T.S. and Jade have an affectionate but insecure bond. The expert concluded that T.S. could not provide a minimal degree of safe parenting and Jade would not be safe in his care. Jade has lived with relatives and other caretakers most of her life. She has lived since September 2010 with one sister. During trial a relative came forward who was willing to adopt both girls.
In her comprehensive opinion, Judge White 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 Jade'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 her expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998), and we are bound by her 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) (citations omitted). 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, her legal conclusions are unassailable.
Although conceding his inability to care for Jade himself at the time of trial, contrary to the judge's findings, defendant contends on appeal that termination was not in Jade's best interests because it was not yet certain that she would be adopted. He also argues that the Division failed to provide reasonable efforts to him for reunification, and failed to meet its burden of proof, relying unduly on his incarceration. He also claims that the Division failed to consider alternatives to termination of parental rights. 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