Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5078-12T2 DOCKET NO. A-5079-12T2
03-17-2014
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. E.J.T. and J.C., Defendants-Appellants. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF R.C.T. and J.C.T., Minors.
Adrienne M. Kalosieh, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant E.J.T. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Kalosieh, on the brief). Michael C. Kazer, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant J.C. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Kazer, on the brief). Renee Greenberg, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Greenberg, on the brief). David Valentin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for minors R.C.T. and J.C.T. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Mr. Valentin, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fuentes, Fasciale and Haas.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FG-09-154-12.
Adrienne M. Kalosieh, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant E.J.T. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Kalosieh, on the brief).
Michael C. Kazer, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant J.C. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Kazer, on the brief).
Renee Greenberg, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Greenberg, on the brief).
David Valentin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for minors R.C.T. and J.C.T. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Mr. Valentin, on the brief). PER CURIAM
In these two consolidated cases, defendants E.J.T. and J.C. appeal from the June 7, 2013 judgment of guardianship, which terminated their parental rights to their daughter, R.C.T., born in September 2000, and their son, J.C.T., born in January 2007. Defendants contend that plaintiff New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a by clear and convincing evidence. After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, and in light of prevailing legal standards and the arguments presented, we affirm.
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendants. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge Elaine Davis's thorough oral opinion. We add only the following comments.
Judge Davis 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. The Division first became involved with this family in 1997, when it received referrals concerning E.J.T.'s two older children, J.A. and L.A. In January 2011, the Division received a referral stating that L.A. had disclosed that J.C. had been touching her "butt" and "boobs" since she was eleven or twelve years old. The child also reported that J.C. showed her pornography. On one occasion, L.A. stated that E.J.T. came into the child's bedroom and witnessed J.C. "suck[ing] her 'boobs', underneath her clothing."
J.C. is not the father of either J.A. or L.A. J.A. is now an adult. L.A., who was born in July 1996, had originally been a subject of the current protective services litigation, but her maternal grandparents became her kinship legal guardians on May 9, 2012. Neither child is involved in the present appeal.
When interviewed by the Division, J.C. denied ever touching L.A. inappropriately, but admitted that he "pinched" the child's nipples a couple of times "to teach her a lesson" and that he bit her nipple once "to 'scare her.'" E.J.T. initially denied witnessing the assault, but she later admitted that she saw J.C. "suck on [L.A.'s] breasts." Although E.J.T. stated that she "kicked [J.C.] out of the home," she shortly thereafter "allowed him back in because he said he would never harm [L.A.] again." Both E.J.T. and J.C. were arrested. J.C. was charged with sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, and endangering the welfare of a child. E.J.T. was charged with child abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. On April 5, 2012, E.J.T. pled guilty to fourth-degree child abuse, N.J.S.A. 9:6-3 and N.J.S.A. 9:6-1. On January 24, 2014, E.J.T. was sentenced to 364 days in the Hudson County Jail and two years of probation. We were advised at oral argument that J.C. was convicted on several charges following a trial in January 2014, but that he had not yet been sentenced.
The Division removed R.C.T. and J.C.T. from the home and placed them with their maternal grandparents, who are committed to adopting them. We are satisfied that commencing in January 2011, and continuing up to the start of the trial in March 2013, the Division provided multiple opportunities for defendants to reunify with their children and address the deficiencies that rendered them unable to safely parent their children. None of these interventions proved successful.
Judge Davis found that J.C. did not comply with any of the services offered to him and did not have "any relationship" with the two children during the two-year period prior to trial. He did not even participate in a bonding evaluation. Under these circumstances, the judge concluded that the termination of J.C.'s parental rights
would do no harm because these children have little or no connection to their father.
These are formative years that these children are in and two years of those years have had no contact. And the most important thing is that [J.C.] has not made any effort to correct that situation which he could have done by going to services . . . and he failed to do it so in this court's opinion, there is no harm that's going to be done.
E.J.T. initially failed to comply with services, but she later did so. However, Judge Davis relied upon the uncontroverted testimony of the Division's expert, Dr. Robert Miller, to conclude that, despite her participation in services, E.J.T. "does not have the ability to protect the children" from future abuse. The judge explained:
[T]here is an allegation that [J.C.] inappropriately touched and had some sexual contact with a teenage girl who lived in the home and was the child of his paramour.Judge Davis also found that E.J.T. could not protect the children from harm because she "had no housing, she had no job, she had no ability to support [and] had no ability to understand her inability and to relate appropriately to the children."
Those are very serious charges. They are charges that go to the very heart of safety of a child and Dr. Miller indicated that [E.J.T.] had little or no understanding of the importance of the protection from this type of behavior, was much more interested in keeping her relationship with [J.C.] and even went to the point of accusing [L.A.] of lying and saying that she - - this was not true. And of course protecting [J.C.] instead of her daughter.
Dr. Miller indicated that there was a history here of lack of empathy which was an interesting aspect of his testimony. And by that he meant that when he observed the two children with [E.J.T.], he found that she had no real relationship [with the children].
Dr. Miller performed a bonding evaluation between E.J.T. and the children. Although E.J.T.'s bond with J.C.T. is stronger than the one she shares with R.C.T., Dr. Miller described E.J.T.'s level of bonding with both children as "emotionally detached" and "insecure." While the children expressed a preference to live with E.J.T., they did not object to staying with their grandparents, and they have a strong bond with them. Judge Davis found that "[t]here's a confident family attachment and that both the grandmother and the grandfather demonstrated an ability to keep [the children] safe and to overcome their deficits." The judge therefore concluded that terminating E.J.T.'s and J.C.'s parental rights would not do more harm than good.
Judge Davis's opinion tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a, 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 N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. 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 affirm substantially for the reasons the judge expressed in her comprehensive and well-reasoned oral opinion.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION