Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5091-13T4
03-24-2015
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. C.C., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.W.C. A minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Ruth Harrigan, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Elizabeth Sherwood, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Danielle Ruiz, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Haas. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FG-14-60-13. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Ruth Harrigan, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Elizabeth Sherwood, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Danielle Ruiz, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
C.C. appeals from a June 12, 2014 order terminating her parental rights to her son, A.W.C., born in 2008, due to her prolonged inability to provide him with a safe home because of her long-term drug involvement and psychiatric issues. Although the father's rights were also terminated, he does not appeal. The child was removed from his mother twice, and was raised primarily by his maternal grandparents, with whom he is securely bonded, and who want to adopt him. They have consistently provided visitation, including supervised overnight visitation, to C.C. A.W.C.'s Law Guardian urges us to affirm. Based substantially on the June 12, 2014 written opinion of Judge Maritza Berdote Byrne, we do so.
We abbreviate the names of the parties to preserve the confidentiality of the family.
As Judge Berdote Byrne detailed in her thirty-two page opinion, C.C. was provided many services including Morris County's innovative Family Drug Court, from which she successfully graduated. Unfortunately, soon after graduating C.C. relapsed once again. At the time of trial, C.C. was attending a methadone program. Even the defense expert did not recommend that the boy live alone with his mother. He opined that the child could be reunified with his mother if she lived with the grandparents. However, that situation would not have been acceptable to the grandparents. They wanted to give the child the permanency of adoption, instead of having him remain in limbo, hoping that their daughter would someday overcome her drug problem. In her 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. 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) (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, her legal conclusions are unassailable.
N.J. Courts, Morris/Sussex Family Drug Court Celebrates 10th Anniversary, https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/pressrel/2014/pr140520a.pdf (last visited March 11, 2014).
--------
Defendant contends, contrary to the trial judge's findings, that the Division failed to prove each of the four prongs by clear and convincing evidence. Those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Additionally, defendant argues that her request in December 2013, over a year before trial, to dismiss the termination case and allow her to move in with her parents to be reunited with her son should have been granted, because her stipulation to drug use was insufficient to prove abuse or neglect. As the Division points out, it may bring a Title 30 guardianship action without proving child abuse or neglect in an action brought under Title 9. N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. A.P., 408 N.J. Super. 252, 260 (App. Div. 2009), certif. denied, 201 N.J. 153 (2010). C.C. was homeless at the time she sought dismissal of the guardianship litigation. This argument is also without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. 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