Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0817-13T3
06-04-2014
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. E.R., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.M.R. and E.M.R., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (John P. Monaghan, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Nancy P. Fratz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Fuentes, Fasciale and Haas.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FG-20-7-13.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (John P. Monaghan, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Nancy P. Fratz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant E.R. is the biological father of two girls, A.M.R. born in 1996, and E.M.R. born in 2008. Defendant appeals from the order of the Family Part terminating his parental rights over both of these children. The Division Of Child Protection And Permanency (Division) filed a verified guardianship complaint alleging defendant had a chronic substance problem involving heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. Despite repeated services and programs offered by the Division, including outpatient and inpatient treatment programs, defendant has been unable or unwilling to take any meaningful steps to address his addiction or contain the catastrophic consequences his addiction has had on his two young daughters.
The guardianship petition was tried before Judge Bradford Bury over a period three days. The Division presented overwhelming evidence of defendant's parental unfitness and established, by clear and convincing evidence, all four statutory prongs outlined in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1 and discussed and approved by the Court in In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347-48 (1999). As an appellate court, our role is to determine whether the Family Part's decision to terminate defendant's parental rights "is supported by 'substantial and credible evidence' on the record." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Services v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007)).
After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Bury in his opinion dated September 30, 2013.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION