Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5125-14T4 DOCKET NO. A-5129-14T4
07-21-2016
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. L.S. and T.A.W., Defendants-Appellants. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.D.W., a minor.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant L.S. (Jennifer L. Gottschalk, Designated Counsel). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant T.A.W. (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Cristina Ramundo, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Lisa M. Black, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Gilson. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-168-15. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant L.S. (Jennifer L. Gottschalk, Designated Counsel). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant T.A.W. (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Cristina Ramundo, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Lisa M. Black, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendants T.A.W. (Tammy), the mother, and L.S. (Luke), the father, appeal from a June 30, 2015 judgment of guardianship terminating their parental rights to their then eight-year-old daughter, K.D.W. (Karen), who was born in December 2006. Both parents argue that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to prove the factors necessary for termination of their parental rights. See N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The father also argues the trial was conducted prematurely before any alternative permanent placements could be arranged. Having reviewed the evidence presented at trial and the applicable law, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Linda Lordi Cavanaugh in her comprehensive written opinion issued on June 30, 2015.
We use fictitious names to protect the privacy interests of the parents and the child. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
After over a year of Title 9 proceedings, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.73, in October 2014, the Division filed a Title 30 action, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15, seeking guardianship of the child and termination of the parties' parental rights. A two-day trial was conducted in June 2015; both parents attended and were represented by counsel. The Division presented testimony from a caseworker and Dr. Mark Singer, a licensed psychologist who had evaluated both parents and the child. The Division also submitted 120 exhibits into evidence. The father testified at trial, but the mother elected not to testify. Neither parent called any witnesses.
Judge Cavanaugh made extensive findings of fact that are amply supported by the substantial credible evidence in the record. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). Given that Judge Cavanaugh set forth those fact-findings in a detailed written opinion, we need only summarize the pertinent facts to illustrate that there was clear and convincing evidence of all four prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a).
Tammy has a long and extensive history of drug and alcohol abuse. She admitted to Singer that she began using alcohol and marijuana at the age of twelve, phencyclidine (PCP) at the age of fourteen, and crack cocaine at the age of twenty-one. In June 2012, Tammy gave birth to a second daughter, Kylie, and both tested positive for cocaine at the time of birth. Tammy admitted to using ten bags of crack cocaine daily and drinking alcohol throughout her pregnancy with Kylie. Kylie was removed from Tammy's custody shortly after her birth, and Tammy ultimately agreed to an identified surrender of her parental rights to Kylie so the child could be adopted.
Kylie is not a subject of this appeal. --------
Tammy has attended several substance abuse treatment programs, including programs arranged by the Division. Unfortunately, she failed to complete some of the programs and has repeatedly relapsed after leaving treatment. For example, at several court appearances in 2015, Tammy tested positive for cocaine and PCP. Tammy told Singer that the longest period of time that she has gone without using any substance outside of a treatment facility was one week.
Tammy also has a history of unstable behavior. She was incarcerated on several different occasions and she acknowledged that she was arrested at least sixteen times for possession of illegal substances and disruptive behavior. Singer found that Tammy has difficulty dealing with frustration, which causes her to act out aggressively.
As a result of her substance abuse, unstable housing, and several periods of incarceration, Tammy has only lived with Karen sporadically. For the first seven years of her life, Karen lived primarily with various aunts, without a consistent and stable place to call home. In 2013, while Karen was staying with one of her aunts, the aunt was arrested on charges of endangering the welfare of children, including Karen. As a result, the Division placed Karen in foster care. She has been in foster care and in the legal custody of the Division since 2013.
Karen's biological father Luke has never had custody of Karen nor any personal involvement in his daughter's life. The Division first located Luke in March 2014, while he was incarcerated. Luke was evaluated and found to have substance abuse problems. Accordingly, the Division referred him to treatment, but he failed to attend consistently or follow the treatment regimen causing him to relapse. Indeed, Luke tested positive for illicit drug use at court appearances in 2014 and 2015.
Singer completed a psychological evaluation of Luke. He found Luke "struggle[d] with a thought disturbance, [had] substance abuse issues, and ha[d] difficulty adhering to societal limits." Singer also found that Luke would be unlikely to acquire the skills and resources necessary to provide Karen with a consistent, permanent and stable environment in the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately, Karen has suffered from her unstable childhood. Educators from the various schools Karen has attended as well as her foster mother have reported that Karen has behavioral issues, including temper tantrums, unruly behavior, and emotional outbursts. Consequently, the Division has provided Karen with extensive psychological treatment and therapy. Singer evaluated Karen to determine the extent of her emotional and psychological damage. He found that she had "issues related to impulsivity and aggression" and "fear[ed] abandonment." Having also evaluated Tammy, Singer opined Tammy lacked the ability and capacity to parent Karen, and Karen would have a negative reaction if she left her foster home and was placed with Tammy. Specifically, Singer concluded that Tammy "lack[ed] the emotional and physical resources needed to care for [Karen]" and was unlikely to "become a parenting option for [Karen] in the foreseeable future." Ultimately, Singer endorsed and supported the plan of adoption for Karen. He opined adoption would be in Karen's best interest because it would give her an opportunity to achieve permanency and stability.
While the Title 9 and Title 30 actions were proceeding, the Division provided both Tammy and Luke with services to address their particular needs. Tammy participated in several different substance abuse programs and Luke was also referred to several substance abuse programs. Both were inconsistent in their attendance and were ultimately discharged from certain of those programs. The record shows both Tammy and Luke relapsed; there was also evidence that they were continuing to use illegal drugs right up to the time of trial. Both parents were also offered parenting classes. Neither Tammy nor Luke were compliant in attending those classes or therapeutic visitation, and they were inconsistent in attending parenting time with Karen.
After making extensive fact-findings, Judge Cavanaugh applied these findings to the relevant legal standards and found clear and convincing evidence that the Division had proved each of the four factors identified in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). Having reviewed Judge Cavanaugh's legal conclusions, we are satisfied she applied the salient facts developed at trial to the statutory factors in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) to reach a clearly sustainable decision. Having also reviewed the arguments put forward by both parents, we reject all of those arguments because they are not supported by the facts established at trial or the well-established law.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION