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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 binding only 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-0804-16T3
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
N.R.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF A.R.,
Minor.
_________________________________
Submitted May 10, 2017 – Decided June 13, 2017
Before Judges Simonelli and Carroll.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Middlesex County, Docket No. FG-12-0096-16.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Kisha M. Hebbon, Designated
Counsel, on the briefs).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Christina Duclos, Deputy Attorney General, on
the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minor (James J. Gross,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant N.R., the biological mother of A.R., born in 2010,
appeals from the October 30, 2015 Family Part judgment for
guardianship, which terminated her parental rights to the child.1
On appeal, defendant contends the trial judge erred in finding
that respondent New Jersey Division of Child Protection and
Permanency (Division) proved all four prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-
15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree, and affirm.
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's
involvement with defendant and her family. Instead, we incorporate
by reference the factual findings set forth in Judge Jane B.
Cantor's comprehensive October 6, 2016 written opinion. However,
we add the following comments.
Defendant has been involved with the Division since 2003.
She had three other children, none of whom are in her care.2 With
respect to A.R., the record reveals that defendant ingested non-
1
An August 24, 2016 judgment of guardianship terminated the
parental rights of A.R.'s biological father, W.R., who did not
appeal and did not participate in this appeal.
2
Two children reside with relatives and defendant surrendered
her parental rights to the third child.
2 A-0804-
16T30804-16T3
prescribed opiate medication when she was pregnant with the child
and had no prenatal care. When A.R. was born in 2010, she and
defendant tested positive for opiates, and A.R. suffered from
opiate withdrawal symptoms that required her hospitalization for
approximately one month. A.R. was removed from defendant's care
and placed with her current foster parents following her release
from the hospital. A.R. was readmitted to the hospital for
treatment of severe medical complications and had a feeding tube
inserted. A subsequent reunification failed due to defendant's
continued substance abuse and medical neglect of A.R., who suffered
a severe infection in her feeding tube resulting from defendant's
failure to comply with the treatment plan. In May 2012, the
Division placed A.R. back with her foster parents, who want to
adopt her. The Division's next attempt to reunify defendant with
A.R. failed when defendant exposed the child to domestic violence
and emotional and physical abuse. Defendant's visits with A.R.
thereafter made the child tense, anxious, fearful, and extremely
agitated. Notably, A.R. lost bowel control a number of times
during visits with defendant.
From 2010 until the trial in 2016, defendant's involvement
with the Division was marked by her continued substance abuse,
non-compliance with services, refusal to address her mental health
3 A-0804-
16T30804-16T3
and substance abuse issues, inconsistent visitation, and failure
to provide A.R. with stable housing and care. The expert
psychological evidence Judge Cantor found credible confirmed that
defendant has ongoing substance abuse issues and significant
parenting and personality deficits that rendered her unable to
safely parent A.R. at the time of the guardianship trial or in the
foreseeable future, and her conduct harmed A.R. and deprived the
child of permanency. Even defendant's psychological expert agreed
that defendant was unable to parent A.R. at the time of trial.
The expert bonding evidence Judge Cantor found credible,
revealed that defendant and A.R. have a dysfunctional relationship
embedded in trauma, neglect, attachment problems, and abuse.
Notably, during the bonding evaluation, defendant displayed
bizarre and maladaptive parenting behaviors, and A.R. defecated
on herself, which was a symptom of trauma. The bond between
defendant and A.R. was insecure, as defendant did not meet the
child's needs, was not consistent as a caretaker, and was
unavailable at times.
Conversely, the bonding evidence revealed that A.R. had a
strong bond and attachment with her foster parents and viewed them
4 A-0804-
16T30804-16T3
as her parental and primary nurturing figures.3 The expert
evidence confirmed that termination of defendant's parental rights
would not do A.R. more harm than good, but the child's removal
from her foster parents would be catastrophic. A.R. would
experience heightened trauma, as A.R. had been with her foster
parents most of her life and they had been the only stability in
her lifetime, and severance of her bond with them would cause the
child severe harm which defendant could not ameliorate.
Judge Cantor reviewed the evidence presented at the trial,
made detailed factual findings as to each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-
15.1(a), and thereafter concluded the Division met by clear and
convincing evidence all of the legal requirements for a judgment
of guardianship. The judge's opinion tracks the statutory
requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), accords with N.J. Div. of
Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012), N.J. Div. of
Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008), 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 more than amply
supported by the record. F.M., supra, 211 N.J. at 448-49.
3
Defendant's expert did not conduct a bonding evaluation between
A.R. and her foster parents.
5 A-0804-
16T30804-16T3
Affirmed.
6 A-0804-
16T30804-16T3