Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1579-13T3 DOCKET NO. A-1580-13T3
04-23-2015
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.W. and A.E., Defendants-Appellants. IN THE MATTER OF R.W., a minor.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant J.W. (Dianne Glenn, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant A.E. (Adrienne Kalosieh, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Matthew D. Lane, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Margo E.K. Hirsch, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Guadagno and Leone. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, Docket No. FN-16-53-13. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant J.W. (Dianne Glenn, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant A.E. (Adrienne Kalosieh, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Matthew D. Lane, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Margo E.K. Hirsch, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
In these two appeals, calendared back-to-back and consolidated by us for the purpose of this opinion, defendants J.W., the father, and A.E., the mother, challenge the Family Part fact-finding order of January 4, 2013 finding by a preponderance of evidence that they abused or neglected their daughter, R.W. They also challenge the permanency order of August 28, 2013, finding that the Division's permanent plan for R.W. of termination of parental rights followed by adoption was appropriate and acceptable.
On October 15, 2013, the Title Nine litigation was dismissed because the Division filed a complaint seeking the termination of defendants' parental rights. The guardianship matter was tried over four days in April 2014, and on April 24, 2014, the trial court entered a judgment of guardianship terminating the parental rights of both parents to R.W.
On January 16, 2015, we affirmed that judgment. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. A.E., Nos. A-4103-13 & A-4104-13 (App. Div. Jan. 16, 2015).
J.W. raises the following points:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION MUST BE REVERSED AS THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT [J.W.]'S BEHAVIOR AND LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN DIVISION SERVICES RESULTED IN [R.W.] BEING AN ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILD UNDER N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(C).
POINT II
[J.W.] AND [R.W.] WERE DEPRIVED OF A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO BOND AND REUNIFY AS ONLY ONE VISIT OCCURRED IN THE ENTIRE PROTECTIVE SERVICES LITIGATION.
A.E. raises the following points:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT APPROVED THE PERMANENCY PLAN OF TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS FOLLOWED BY ADOPTION.
A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT APPROVED THE PERMANENCY PLAN OF TERMINATION OF A.E.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS FOLLOWED BY ADOPTION OF R.W. BECAUSE THE DECISION WAS BASED ON THE UNSUPPORTED FINDING THAT DCPP HAD MADE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID REMOVAL AS REQUIRED BY N.J.S.A. 30:4C-11.1(B).
B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN INTERPRETING N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12.1 TO PUT THE ONUS ON DEFENDANT
PARENTS TO PROVIDE POSSIBLE PLACEMENTS.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT A HEALTHY, NEARLY 7LB BABY WITH EXCELLENT APGAR SCORES WAS ABUSED OR NEGLECTED BY VIRTUE OF HIS MOTHER'S BEING INCARCERATED AND NOT NAMING A FOURTH POSSIBLE PLACEMENT.
As we did in defendants' appeal of the judgment of guardianship, we find insufficient merit in these arguments 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