Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4542-12T4 A-4543-12T4
06-24-2014
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. M.R. and R.A., Defendants-Appellants. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.A.A. and R.A.A., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant R.A. (Mark E. Kleiman, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant M.R. (Albert M. Afonso, Designated Counsel, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Patricia A. Krogman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Damen J. Thiel, Designated Counsel, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-09-112-13.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant R.A. (Mark E. Kleiman, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant M.R. (Albert M. Afonso, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Patricia A. Krogman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Damen J. Thiel, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
In these consolidated cases, defendant M.R. (mother), and R.A. (father), appeal a final judgment entered by the Family Part terminating their parental rights to their daughters, J.A.A., born in 2009, and R.A.A., born in 2011. We affirm.
M.R. has one other child and R.A. has two other children. However, as noted by the trial judge, "[n]one of these three children are in their parents' care, and none are the subjects of this action."
The Division of Youth and Family Services (Division), filed a verified guardianship complaint alleging defendants' chronic substance abuse, which included alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and prescription pain medication, has rendered them incapable of parenting these two children. The record before us shows defendants have lived a dysfunctional and unstable lifestyle, without steady employment or stable housing.
On June 29, 2012, Governor Chris Christie signed into law A-3101, which reorganizes the Department of Children and Families, including the renaming of the Division of Youth and Family Services as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. L. 2012, c. 16, eff. June 29, 2012.
--------
Despite repeated services and programs offered by the Division, including outpatient and inpatient treatment programs, defendants have been unable or unwilling to take any meaningful steps to address their addiction or contain the catastrophic consequences their addiction has had on their two young daughters.
The guardianship petition was tried before Judge Lois Lipton over a period of three non-sequential days in April 2013. The Division presented overwhelming evidence of defendants' 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 our Supreme 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 defendants' 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 Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007)).
After carefully reviewing the record, and mindful of the Court's recent reaffirmation of the enhanced deference appellate courts owe to decisions made by Family Part judges, especially those decisions that are heavily dependent on the trial judge's credibility determinations, N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op. at 28-29), we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lipton in her oral opinion delivered from the bench on May 14, 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