DCPP VS. C.S.R. AND C.C. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.B.R. AND S.D.R.(FG-07-231-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3143-15T1

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

C.S.R.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

C.C.,
Defendant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF S.B.R. AND S.D.R., minors.

Submitted April 25, 2017 — Decided May 12, 2017

Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex
County, Docket No. FG-07-231-15.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Dorian Smith, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
 Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Julie
B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minors (Caitlin
McLaughlin, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant C.S.R. appeals from a Family Part order dated March

18, 2016, terminating his parental rights to his two children,

"Sarah" and "Suzy,"1 who are now eight and four years old. The

children's mother, C.C. has surrendered her parental rights. 2

Because the permanent placement has been disrupted and the children

moved, and because the expert found the initial prospective

relative adoptive parents could mitigate any harm caused by the

termination of defendant's rights, we remand for a further hearing.

We affirm the remainder of the court's decision substantially for

the reasons stated by the judge in her eighty-six-page written

opinion issued on March 22, 2016.

The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's opinion.

A summary will suffice here. Sarah was first removed from her

1 We use pseudonyms and initials to refer to the parties pursuant
to Rule 1:38-3(d)(12).

2She first gave an identified surrender to the paternal relatives
and later to the current caretakers.
2 A-3143-15T1
home in 2009, when she was only a few weeks old. She tested

positive for methadone and went through opiate withdrawal at birth.

In February 2013, Suzy was born and also tested positive for

methadone at birth. The two girls were reunified with their mother

at a "Mommy and Me" program for short periods of time, but the

mother continued to use drugs. Both children were also placed

with defendant's brother and sister-in-law more than once, and

that is where they resided at the time of the guardianship trial.

Defendant, who is now forty-seven years old, reported having

as many as fifteen other children, although he could not supply

the last name of one of the children. He was at times hard to

locate. From April to June 2012 neither parent could be located.

In March 2013, defendant, C.C. and the children lived together at

a YMCA shelter, but in April 2014 the children were again removed,

because defendant was homeless and unemployed.

After the children were removed, defendant missed several

appointments with the Division. He was arrested and incarcerated

for ten days. In December 2014, the girls were again placed with

the paternal relatives. Defendant missed many visits at "Reunity

House" and behaved inappropriately at others. In April 2015

defendant was again arrested and incarcerated. Eventually he

began supervised visits with the children at the home of his

brother and sister-in-law.

3 A-3143-15T1
 Defendant was evaluated by Dr. Peter DeNigris. Dr. DeNigris

opined that defendant was "not fit" to parent the children because

he was unwilling to acknowledge any responsibility in the issues

surrounding his children and unwilling to change in any way.

According to Dr. DeNigris, defendant lacked knowledge of child

development and was unwilling to learn.

Dr. DeNigris said the girls were in desperate need of

permanency, especially Sarah, who had endured the most placement

changes. He opined that the paternal caretakers were:

truly the only consistent caretakers who these
children know. They are familiar with their
needs and are committed to addressing them on
a permanent basis. As such, termination of
[defendant's] parental rights will not do more
harm than good. The children will not
experience severe and enduring harm if ties
to their biological father are severed. If
they experience any feelings of grief or loss,
their reactions could be mitigated by
sensitive and nurturing caregivers, such as
[the paternal relatives]. Pursuing
termination of parental rights will allow
these children to remain in an environment
that is guided by nurturance, consistency,
stability, and appropriate parenting.

Dr. DeNigris said Sarah had a "healthy bond" with the paternal

relatives and a healthy bond "is forming" with Suzy.

Defendant's difficulty maintaining employment, homelessness,

substance abuse and involvement with the criminal justice system

as well as his psychological unfitness all impaired his ability

to safely parent his two daughters. The Division offered numerous

4 A-3143-15T1
services to him over an extended period of time, including drug

treatment, supervised visits, bus passes, and assistance in

locating housing. Defendant participated in some services, but

failed to follow-up with substance abuse aftercare, frequently

missed visits and did not engage appropriately with his children

at supervised visits. Defendant did not testify at the

guardianship trial, and at the end of the trial, prior to the

judge's decision, he volunteered to surrender his parental rights

to his brother and sister-in-law, in part because he had heard

that the placement was precarious. The Division did not accept

the surrender. See N.J.S.A. 9:3-41; N.J.S.A. 30:4C-23.

In her comprehensive opinion, the trial judge found that the

Division had proven all four prongs of the best interests test,

N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and that termination of defendant's

parental rights was in the children's best interests. The judge

found as to prong four, "that the children have developed a strong

attachment with their aunt and uncle due to the length of

placement, their ages at the time of placement, and the love and

consistency they provide to the children." She found, therefore,

that the children "will not suffer more harm than good if the

rights of [defendant] are terminated."

On this appeal, our review of the trial judge's decision is

limited. We defer to her expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare

5 A-3143-15T1
v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998), and we are bound by her

factual findings so long as they are supported by sufficient

credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M.,

189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (citing In re Guardianship of J.T., 269

N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)). After reviewing the

record, we conclude that the trial judge's factual findings are

fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, her

legal conclusions are unassailable.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in its findings

on the first three prongs, claiming he only had two drug tests

that were positive for cocaine and he completed one drug program.

Defendant also asserts that he was unable to create a stable home

for his children due to poverty, and not his poor parenting skills.

Those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion

in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Our concern is that after the guardianship trial, the

anticipated adoption of the girls by the paternal relatives did

not come to fruition. The girls had to be removed on July 15,

2016, and have been placed in a non-relative resource home where

the possibility of adoption exists once again. The judge found

that any harm to the children caused by the termination of

defendant's parental rights could be mitigated by the paternal

relatives, due to their long-standing loving relationship with the

6 A-3143-15T1
children. Because of the disruption in that relationship, we are

constrained to remand for a further hearing limited to prong four

of the best interests test: "Termination of parental rights will

not do more harm than good." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4).

Remanded for a further best-interests hearing in light of

recent developments. We do not retain jurisdiction.

7 A-3143-15T1