Opinion
A-1953-21
07-14-2023
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.D., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF C.M.M.L., a minor.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Robert W. Ratish, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Melissa R. Vance, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Submitted July 10, 2023
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FG-12-0042-21.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Robert W. Ratish, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Melissa R. Vance, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Haas and Natali.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant J.D. is the biological parent of C.M.M.L. Defendant appeals from the February 10, 2022 judgment of guardianship terminating her parental rights to the child. Defendant contends that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. The Law Guardian supports the termination on appeal as it did before the trial court.
We refer to defendant and the child by initials to protect their privacy. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied that the evidence in favor of the guardianship petition overwhelming supports the trial court's decision to terminate defendant's parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the trial court in its thorough oral decision rendered on February 10, 2022.
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's interactions with defendant and C.M.M.L. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the trial court's decision. We add the following brief comments.
The guardianship petition was tried before the trial court over the course of multiple days. The Division presented overwhelming evidence that established, by clear and convincing evidence, all four statutory prongs outlined in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). In its thorough decision, the trial court concluded that termination of defendant's parental rights was in C.M.M.L's best interests, and fully explained the basis for each of its determinations.
The scope of our review of a trial court's decision to terminate parental rights is limited. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448-49 (2012). "Because of the family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters," we accord deference to the trial court's fact-finding and the conclusions that flow logically from those findings of fact. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (l998). We are bound by those factual findings so long as they are supported by sufficient credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007).
The trial court's opinions track the requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), including the recent amendments to that statute, and are supported by substantial and credible evidence in the record. F.M., 211 N.J. at 448-49. After appraising the record in light of the findings of fact contained in the court's decisions, we find nothing that requires our intervention. The trial court carefully reviewed the relevant evidence and fully explained its reasons in a logical and forthright fashion.
See L 2021, c. 154.
Children like C.M.M.L., are entitled to a permanent, safe and secure home. We acknowledge "the need for permanency of placements by placing limits on the time for a birth parent to correct conditions in anticipation of reuniting with the child." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. C.S., 367 N.J.Super. 76, 111 (App. Div. 2004). As public policy increasingly focuses on a child's need for permanency, the emphasis has "shifted from protracted efforts for reunification with a birth parent to an expeditious, permanent placement to promote the child's well-being." Ibid. That is because "[a] child cannot be held prisoner of the rights of others, even those of his or her parents. Children have their own rights, including the right to a permanent, safe and stable placement." Ibid.
The question then is "whether the parent can become fit in time to meet the needs of the children." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 375 N.J.Super. 235, 263 (App. Div. 2005); see also N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494, 512 (2004) (indicating that even if a parent is trying to change, a child cannot wait indefinitely). After carefully considering the evidence, the trial court reasonably determined that defendant was unable to parent C.M.M.L. and would not be able to do so for the foreseeable future. Under those circumstances, we agree with the trial court that any further delay of permanent placement would not be in the child's best interests.
Affirmed.