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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0668-16T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
M.B.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
R.C., C.B., and F.D.,
Defendants.
______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF B.B., R.C., Jr.,
and F.D., Jr.,
Minors.
_______________________________
Submitted September 13, 2017 – Decided September 29, 2017
Before Judges Manahan and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset
County, Docket No. FG-18-0106-16.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Beryl Foster-Andres,
Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lea
C. DeGuilo, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minors B.B., R.C., and
F.D. (Melissa R. Vance, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant M.B. appeals from a Family Part order dated September
28, 2016, terminating her parental rights to her three minor children,
B.B., R.C., Jr., and F.D., Jr. The same Judgement of Guardianship
also terminated the parental rights of C.B. and R.C., the fathers of
B.B. and R.C., Jr., respectively, and F.D., the father of F.D., Jr.
C.B. and R.C. have not appealed.1 We affirm substantially for the
reasons set forth in Judge Kimarie Rahill's comprehensive and well-
reasoned seventeen-page written opinion issued with the order.
The evidence is set forth in detail in the judge's opinion.
A summary will suffice here. Since September 10, 2008, the two older
children have resided with their maternal grandparents. The youngest
child, who tested positive for methamphetamine at birth, has resided
with the maternal grandparents since birth in 2012. Defendant resided
1
On or about September 30, 2015, the Division of Child Protection
and Permanency learned about the passing of F.D.
2 A-0668-16T1
at the home with the children until she relocated without the children
to Alaska.
Defendant has suffered from a long-standing history of substance
abuse and mental health issues, which has negatively impacted all
three children. Despite the Division of Child Protection and
Permanency's (Division) provision to defendant of services, she has
not completed substance abuse treatment and she has not engaged in
mental health services. Nor has defendant complied with court
recommendations to attend counseling and psychiatric care. Further,
defendant has not offered a plan for the children regarding living
arrangements and has engaged in a pattern of willful lack of contact
with her children for sustained periods of time.
The Division has been involved with defendant since 2008. After
a permanency hearing in August 2015, the judge approved the Division's
plan for termination of parental rights and adoption due to
defendant's continued abuse of illegal drugs. The judge further
found kinship legal guardianship (KLG) with the maternal grandparents
was logically necessary and sufficient because the children had
resided with their grandparents for several years, and were in
desperate need of permanency.
Following case management hearings in March and June 2016, a
guardianship trial was held before Judge Rahill on September 26 and
27. Defendant appeared at each trial date. C.B. and R.C. did not
3 A-0668-16T1
appear. A Division caseworker and a psychologist, qualified as an
expert in clinical psychology, parenting assessment and bonding,
testified on the Division's behalf. The psychologist opined that the
children were in a secure environment and expressed a desire to be
adopted by their grandparents. Since adoption was a feasible
solution, KLG was not available as an alternative to termination of
parental rights. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 180 N.J. 494,
499 (2004). At the conclusion of trial, the parties gave oral
summations, including the Law Guardian, which supported the
Division's application for termination of parental rights followed
by adoption by the maternal grandparents.
Judge Rahill's opinion gave thoughtful attention to the
importance of permanency and stability "from the perspective of the
child's needs," and found the Division had established by clear and
convincing evidence, statutory grounds for termination of defendant's
parental rights. Furthermore, the judge found the Division had proven
all four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:40C-15.1(a),
which, in the best interest of the children, mandates termination of
parental rights. In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999).
On this appeal, our review of the judge's decision is limited.
We defer to her expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare 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)
4 A-0668-16T1
(citing In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App.
Div. 1993)). We conclude the factual findings by the judge are fully
supported by the record and the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are
unassailable.
Affirmed.
5 A-0668-16T1
DCPP VS. M.B., R.C., C.B. AND F.D.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF B.B., R.C., JR.,AND F.D., JR. (FG-18-0106-16, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
Combined Opinion