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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4424-15T1
A-4426-15T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
R.J.C. and M.A.M.R.,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF J.J.M. and A.M.M., Minors.1
________________________________
Submitted November 13, 2017 – Decided November 28, 2017
Before Judges Sabatino and Ostrer.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County,
Docket No. FG-07-0221-15.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant R.J.C. (Thomas W. MacLeod,
Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant M.A.M.R. (Jennifer L.
Gottschalk, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
1
We use initials to protect the children's privacy.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Roman
Guzik, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minors (Danielle Ruiz,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
After a guardianship trial in May 2016, the Family Part
terminated the parental rights of appellants R.J.C. ("Mother") and
M.A.M.R. ("Father"), with respect to their two minor daughters,
J.J.M. and A.M.M. The trial judge concluded from the proofs that
the Division of Child Protection and Permanency ("the Division")
had proven by clear and convincing evidence all four criteria for
termination required under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1) through (4).
Both parents now contest the trial court's decision in these
consolidated appeals. The Law Guardian for the minors joins with
the Division in opposing appellants' contentions on appeal. We
affirm.
We need not elaborate in detail the facts adduced in the
multiple days of trial testimony and the copious associated
exhibits. The following brief summary will suffice.
Appellants are the biological parents of six children
together. Mother gave birth to J.J.M., the couple's third child,
in August 2004, and to A.M.M., the couple's fifth child, in August
2 A-4424-15T1
2006.2 The parents are no longer living together, and Father has
since married another woman.
The parents have had a long history with the Division dating
back to 2003, when it began to receive a series of referrals about
their household. In 2008, the Division substantiated a referral
of physical abuse by Father against their oldest child, and
Division case workers began periodic visitations of the household.
In 2009, the family moved from New Jersey to Puerto Rico.
While in Puerto Rico, Mother inflicted physical abuse upon
the children in September 2009. She did so by burning them with
a heated spoon on the lips, as a reprisal after they had taken
juice from the refrigerator without her permission. Mother was
criminally prosecuted in Puerto Rico for this harmful act. She
was convicted of child abuse and sentenced to three years of
probation. Father, who was not at home when the hot spoon incident
occurred, was prosecuted for failing to report the child abuse.
He was convicted and sentenced to four months in prison.
Puerto Rican child welfare authorities promptly removed the
children from the parents' household after the spoon incident.
The children have not lived with either parent since that time.
2
The other children are not the subject of this litigation.
Consequently, we will refer to J.J.M. and A.M.M. in this opinion
as "the children," unless the context indicates otherwise.
3 A-4424-15T1
As of the time of the guardianship trial in 2016, the children had
not resided with Mother or Father for almost seven years.
In September 2013, the children were placed in the care of a
paternal aunt in the United States. Thereafter, in February 2014,
the Division removed the children from the paternal aunt's home,
after receiving a substantiated report that she had abused her own
son. The children eventually were placed together with a foster
family in New Jersey. The expert testimony presented at trial
reflected that the children have bonded with the foster parents,
although the experts differed somewhat about the extent of that
bonding with respect to each parent. The foster parents wish to
adopt the children.
Meanwhile, Father and Mother returned to the United States.
Due to ambiguity as to whether their parental rights had been
terminated earlier in Puerto Rico, the Division filed the present
guardianship action against them under Title 30.
While the litigation was pending, the Division objected to
providing services to the parents and allowing them visitation
with the children, pending the completion of psychological
evaluations and expert recommendations about whether visitation
would harm the children and which services to provide. The
evaluations were delayed to accommodate the parents' request for
a bilingual expert. The parents then abruptly moved to Texas,
4 A-4424-15T1
missing their scheduled evaluations. Because the Division could
not readily arrange evaluations in Texas, it rescheduled the
evaluations to take place in New Jersey and paid for the
transportation of the parents. The parents returned for the
evaluations and thereafter chose to remain in New Jersey.
During trial, the four testifying experts expressed varying
opinions as to whether therapeutic visitation would help the
children. Notably, none of the experts opined that the parents
were presently able to provide a safe and stable home to the
children. Testimony from several of the experts detailed the
mental health issues of each parent. The expert testimony further
noted the behavioral problems of the older daughter, J.J.M., who
has been diagnosed with ADHD.
The respective experts for the Division and the Law Guardian
both recommended that the best interests of the children call for
the termination of appellants' rights and having permanency with
their foster parents, although the Law Guardian's expert advised
that such termination should be preceded by therapeutic visitation
to help prepare the children for that outcome. The experts for
Mother and Father, on the other hand, recommended that termination
be deferred, to see how events unfold while additional services
are provided. Those defense experts both noted the residual bonds
that the children have with their parents, and the generally
5 A-4424-15T1
positive interactions they exhibited during bonding evaluation
sessions.
After sifting through the proofs, the trial judge issued an
oral decision concluding that all four criteria for termination
had been established. Among other things, the judge noted that
neither parent had custody of the children since 2009, and that
the children's reported desires to be reunified with their parents
were unrealistic. The judge further noted the favorable care
provided by the foster parents, and stressed the need for the
children to have permanency.
The applicable law is well established. When seeking the
termination of a parent's rights under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), the
Division has the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing
proof, these four requirements:
(1) The child's safety, health or development
has been or will continue to be endangered by
the parental relationship;
(2) The parent is unwilling or unable to
eliminate the harm facing the child or is
unable or unwilling to provide a safe and
stable home for the child and the delay of
permanent placement will add to the harm.
Such harm may include evidence that separating
the child from his resource family parents
would cause serious and enduring emotional or
psychological harm to the child;
(3) [The Division] has made reasonable efforts
to provide services to help the parent correct
the circumstances which led to the child's
6 A-4424-15T1
placement outside the home and the court has
considered alternatives to termination of
parental rights; and
(4) Termination of parental rights will not
do more harm than good.
[N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)].
The four factors are "not discrete and separate," but rather
"overlap to offer a full picture of the child's best interest."
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 554
(2014) (citing N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189
N.J. 261, 280 (2007)).
In reviewing the Family Part's application of these factors
and findings from the trial proofs, we accord considerable
deference. R.G., supra, 217 N.J. at 552 (citing In re Guardianship
of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440, 472 (2002)). The trial court's findings
generally should be upheld so long as they are supported by
"adequate, substantial, and credible evidence." R.G., supra, 217
N.J. at 552. A trial court's decision in this child welfare
context should only be reversed or altered on appeal if the court's
findings were "so wholly unsupportable as to result in a denial
of justice." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J.
494, 511 (2004).
Here, Mother contests the trial court's application of all
four factors as to her own rights, whereas Father challenges only
7 A-4424-15T1
factors three and four as to him. Having considered their
arguments, we affirm, substantially for the sound reasons
expressed in the trial judge's opinion.
Although appellants contend that the judge mischaracterized
the record in certain respects and that he should have been more
indulgent of their positions, the record strongly supports his
decision to terminate their parental rights under the applicable
law and the circumstances presented. The judge was not obligated
to adopt the more optimistic opinions of the defense experts and
to give less credence to the opinions of the experts for the
Division and the Law Guardian. Angel v. Rand Express Lines, Inc.,
66 N.J. Super. 77, 85-86 (App. Div. 1961) (recognizing the well-
established principle that a trier of fact may accept the opinions
of a testifying expert and reject those of the opposing experts).
The judge also rightly emphasized the children's need for
permanency, particularly given the many years that have passed
since the children were removed from their parents' custody in
Puerto Rico.
Affirmed.
8 A-4424-15T1
DCPP VS. R.J.C. AND M.A.M.R.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.J.M. AND A.M.M. (FG-07-0221-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
Combined Opinion