Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4984-14T2
06-20-2016
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. D.C., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF B.M.C., D.E.C., and D.L.C., JR., Minors.
Howard B. Tat, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Tat, on the brief). Jennifer Russo-Belles, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Russo-Belles, on the brief). James J. Gross, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for minors (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Mr. Gross, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fasciale and Higbee. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Cape May County, Docket No. FG-05-32-14. Howard B. Tat, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Tat, on the brief). Jennifer Russo-Belles, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Russo-Belles, on the brief). James J. Gross, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for minors (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Mr. Gross, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a June 25, 2015 judgment of guardianship terminating his parental rights to his three children, five-year-old B.M.C., and four-year-old twins D.E.C. and D.L.C. (collectively the children). Defendant argues the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) failed to prove all four prongs of the best interests of the child standard, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), by clear and convincing evidence. After reviewing the arguments raised in light of the evidence presented to the trial court and the prevailing legal standards, we affirm.
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendant. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge John R. Rauh's comprehensive oral and supplementary written opinions. We add the following brief comments.
We are satisfied that, beginning with the Division's involvement with defendant in January 2013, and continuing up to and including the commencement of the trial in May 2015, defendant was unable to overcome the deficiencies that rendered him unable to safely parent the children. Defendant has a history of domestic violence, neglect, and underlying mental health issues hindering his ability to respond appropriately to the children and lacked basic parenting knowledge to appropriately supervise and care for a child. Defendant's prognosis for improvement was poor because he failed to comply with services or accept responsibility. 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.
The judge 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. His 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 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 for the reasons the judge expressed in his well-reasoned opinions.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION