Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2046-15T1
10-07-2016
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.L.H., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF C.M.H. AND J.J.H., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Mark E. Kleiman, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Deirdre A. Carver, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Olivia Belfatto Crisp, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is only binding on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Simonelli and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, Docket No. FG-13-79-14. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Mark E. Kleiman, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Deirdre A. Carver, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Olivia Belfatto Crisp, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant J.L.H., the biological mother of J.J.H., born in 2001, and C.M.H., born in 2004, appeals from the October 30, 2015 Family Part judgment for guardianship, which terminated her parental rights to the children. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial judge erred in finding that respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) proved prong four of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, defendant argues that the judge erred in concluding that termination of her parental rights would not do the children more harm than good because neither child was in an adoptive placement at the time of trial. We disagree, and affirm.
The judgment also terminated the parental rights of the children's biological father, who voluntarily surrendered his parental rights. --------
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendant and her family. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings set forth in Judge Teresa Kondrup-Coyle's October 30, 2015 written opinion. However, we add the following comments.
Defendant has a history of significant mental health issues that required her hospitalization on numerous occasions. She became involved with the Division in December 2003, when J.J.H. was removed from her care after she refused to evacuate her home, which had no heat or electricity due to a fire in a nearby home. Law enforcement forcibly removed defendant from the home and transported her to the hospital, where she was involuntarily admitted into the psychiatric unit. J.J.H. was also admitted to the hospital, suffering from smoke inhalation, hypothermia, and elevated carbon monoxide levels. In 2004, the Division removed C.M.H. from defendant's care after she refused testing that would confirm whether the child had Down Syndrome.
The children were reunified with defendant in 2006. However, defendant's psychiatric condition deteriorated and they were removed from her care in 2012. At that time, defendant was involuntarily committed because she was acutely paranoid and delusional and unable to provide adequate care for the children.
The Division's undisputed expert evidence revealed that defendant has been diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type, Versus Bipolar Disorder, Type I, Severe, With Severe Psychotic Features; and Borderline Personality Functioning, Provisional Maladaptive Personality Traits. The expert evidence confirmed that defendant has a chronic debilitative psychiatric condition that requires lifelong treatment on essentially a daily basis, her prognosis is extremely poor, she cannot care for any child in the foreseeable future, and any child left under her care would be vulnerable to abuse or neglect.
Defendant's mental health issues had a serious effect on the children. Among other things, while in defendant's care, J.J.H. acted out violently and was unable to express his anger in healthy and appropriate ways. After his removal from defendant, he progressed in anger management and in socializing with peers, and gained insight into his past behavior. He exhibited anxiety and distress when discussing his relationship with his mother, and his therapist recommended against a bonding evaluation because it would not be in his best interest and would cause him anxiety and emotional harm. Notably, J.J.H. expressed his desire not to return to his mother's care despite knowing his current caretaker had not committed to adopting him.
C.M.H. is a special needs child who requires a heightened level of care and supervision. Her hygiene and overall functioning improved after her removal from defendant's care, and her oppositional behavior was being well-managed. She was not in an adoptive placement at the time of the trial.
Judge Kondrup-Coyle considered the children's adoption prospects if defendant's parental rights were terminated. The judge balanced the children's adoption prospects against the significant and imminent harm defendant presented and continued to present to her children, and concluded that termination of her parental rights was in their best interests and would not do them more harm than good. The judge reviewed the evidence presented at the trial, made detailed factual findings as to each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and thereafter concluded the Division met by clear and convincing evidence all of the legal requirements for a judgment of guardianship. The judge's opinion tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), accords with N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012), N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008), 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 more than amply supported by the record. F.M., supra, 211 N.J. at 448-49.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION