Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4906-12T4
06-20-2014
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. K.R., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.R AND S.R., Minors.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Victor E. Ramos, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Michelle J. McBrian, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Hector Ruiz, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Simonelli, Fasciale and Haas.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-214-12.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Victor E. Ramos, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Michelle J. McBrian, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Hector Ruiz, Designated Counsel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant K.R., the biological mother of Jane, born in 2004, and John, born in 2005, appeals from a May 28, 2013 judgment of guardianship, which terminated her parental rights to these children. Defendant contends that the Division failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a by clear and convincing evidence. We are thoroughly convinced that defendant's contentions are entirely without merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, and in light of prevailing legal standards and arguments presented, we affirm.
We provided fictitious names for the children. The biological father gave an identified surrender of his parental rights to these children and is not involved in this appeal. In an unpublished opinion calendared back-to-back with this appeal, we affirmed a fact-finding order, a permanency order, and an order terminating the FN litigation. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.R., No. A-2246-12 (App. Div. June 20, 2014).
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendant. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge David B. Katz's seventy-nine page written decision. We add the following brief comments.
We are satisfied that, commencing with the Division's involvement with defendant in May 2011, and continuing up to and including the commencement of the trial two years later, defendant has been unable and unwilling to overcome the deficiencies that prevented her from safely parenting the children. The evidence showed that the police arrived at defendant's apartment and first discovered the children's then eight-year-old physically-abused sister. A medical examiner pronounced the sister dead. The police then located the children, seven and six years old, who had been hidden in a padlocked room of the apartment. The children were frail, thin, unable to stand, screaming in pain, and had blackened elbows and knees from being dragged around the apartment. The evidence showed that defendant had tied the children to a radiator for extended periods of time, subjected the children to extreme physical abuse, and denied them basic care and nourishment. The credible expert evidence demonstrates that defendant lacks the capacity to care for the children and is incapable of providing them a safe, stable, and permanent home.
She died from complications related to an untreated fractured femur, and from severe malnourishment. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide.
--------
Judge Katz carefully reviewed the evidence presented, and thereafter concluded that the Division had met by clear and convincing evidence all of the legal requirements for a judgment of guardianship. His opinion tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a, accords with 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 supported by substantial and credible evidence in the record. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448-49 (2012). We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons that the judge expressed in his comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION