Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0782-13T4
06-13-2014
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANANCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. O.B., Defendant-Appellant, and A.L.M., Defendant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Z.M. and A.M., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Michelle McBrian, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors Z.M. and A.M. (Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Maven and Hoffman.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, Docket No. FG-16-0023-13.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Michelle McBrian, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors Z.M. and A.M. (Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant O.B., the biological mother of A.M. and Z.M., born in 2010 and 2011 respectively, appeals from a September 20, 2013 judgment of guardianship terminating her parental rights to the children. Defendant contends that the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the "Division") failed to prove each of the four prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, and in light of prevailing legal standards and arguments presented, we affirm.
The biological father A.L.M., whose parental rights were also terminated, has not appealed his determination or participated in this appeal.
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendant. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and adopt the legal conclusions contained in Judge Esther Suarez's thirty-nine page written decision. We add the following brief comments.
We are satisfied that, commencing with the Division's involvement with defendant in March 2010, and continuing through the completion of the trial more than three years later, defendant was unable or unwilling to overcome the deficiencies that rendered her unable to safely parent the children. The Division offered numerous services and defendant missed many of her appointments. Defendant has a long history of marijuana abuse, including resumption of use after A.M. was born and continued use during the pendency of the litigation. Defendant also exhibited significant emotional instability for which she refused to attend anger management counseling. The credible expert testimony supports the finding that defendant lacked a commitment to complete services and attend visitation with the children. Bonding evaluations revealed that the children were unresponsive to defendant. They did not move toward defendant or try to greet or kiss her. The children, however, are closely bonded with their respective foster parents. The credible expert evidence demonstrates that defendant lacks the capacity to care for the children and is incapable of providing them a safe, stable, and permanent home.
Judge Suarez carefully reviewed the evidence presented, and thereafter concluded that the Division had met by clear and convincing evidence all of the legal requirements for a judgment of guardianship. Her 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), and New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986); and is supported by substantial and credible evidence in the record. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448-49 (2012). We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons that the judge expressed in her comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion. R. 2:11(3)(e)(1)(A).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION