Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5453-11T3
05-28-2013
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.L.E., Defendant-Appellant, and R.L.V., Defendant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.R.V., minor.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on the brief). Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jennifer Lochel, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor L.R.V. (David Valentin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Grall and Koblitz.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, Docket No. FG-04-102-12.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jennifer Lochel, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor L.R.V. (David Valentin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief). PER CURIAM
J.L.E.'s (Jane's) appeal from the termination of her parental rights returns following a remand to permit the trial judge to amplify his decision with regard to the fourth prong of the termination standard. N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4). N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.L.E., No. A-5453-11 (App. Div. Apr. 12, 2013).
We use fictitious names.
--------
At the time of the guardianship trial, in May 2012, Jane's son L.R.V. (Larry) had been living with his foster family for only three months, and thus no bonding evaluation was performed. At the remand hearing, the judge was informed that Larry continues to reside with the same family. Jane did not appear at the hearing. The judge specified in detail why he determined that terminating Jane's parental rights would not do more harm than good. He stated:
This child needs permanency. He has been in limbo for many years. He is happy in his foster home. He was happy in his foster home at the time we had this hearing, albeit it was a short period of time. We now know that more than a year has gone by and he continues to do well and to thrive. Back then he wanted to be adopted and he still wants to be adopted.
The judge then referred to the Division's expert's report to explain the various reasons he determined that termination was in Larry's best interest including the lack of a secure bond between Larry and his mother, Larry's increased need for permanency due to his special needs and the many deficits interfering with Jane's ability to be a fit mother. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the judge in his supplemental oral opinion of May 3, 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