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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1345-17T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
C.L.J.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
A.C.,
Defendant.
________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF A.Y.J.,
a Minor.
________________________________
Submitted October 25, 2018 – Decided December 10, 2018
Before Judges Simonelli and Whipple.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County,
Docket No. FG-08-0047-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Britt J. Salmon-Dhawan, Designated
Counsel, on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Nancy R. Andre, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (Meredith A. Pollock, Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel; Toya Davis, Designated counsel,
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, C.L.J. (Cindy), appeals from an October 17, 2017 judgment of
guardianship terminating her parental rights to her son, A.Y.J. (Amos). 1 We
affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Mary Beth Kramer's
comprehensive and well-reasoned written decision issued with the judgment.
The evidence is set forth in detail in the judge's decision. A summary will
suffice here. Cindy has a long history with the Division of Child Protection and
1
We use pseudonyms to protect the identity of the family. Because the parties
have similar initials, this allows for ease of reference. In doing so we mean no
disrespect.
A-1345-17T2
2
Permanency (Division) beginning in her own childhood. Her older child, a
daughter, resides with a resource family in Kinship Legal Guardianship, due to
Cindy's history of instability, homelessness, substance abuse and incarceration.
Amos was removed from Cindy's care after he was born at thirty-six weeks and
tested positive for methadone. He was placed in a resource home where he
remains today. Amos's father executed a general surrender of his parental rights
to Amos and he is not part of this appeal. Cindy reported to the Division she is
in a civil union with N.C.
Commencing on October 3, 2017, Judge Kramer conducted the
guardianship proceeding. The Division presented the testimony of two
witnesses, Amos's Division caseworker and Stacey M. Boyer, Psy.D., and
entered the Division record into evidence. Cindy was incarcerated during the
proceeding but was permitted to appear by telephone. Dr. Boyer opined that
given her review of the record and based upon the bonding evaluations she
conducted, Cindy posed multiple, significant parenting risks to Amos, who is
autistic. Despite some efforts made by Cindy, these risks included unavailability
for reunification due to incarceration, homelessness, substance abuse, instability
and failure to complete services. Dr. Boyer determined Amos had a weak bond
with Cindy. Amos's caregivers, in contrast, provided a stable environment and
A-1345-17T2
3
Amos's behaviors demonstrated a strengthening positive attachment to his
caregivers and termination of Cindy's parental rights would not do more harm
than good. On October 17, 2017, after reviewing and carefully considering the
evidence and testimony, Judge Kramer entered the judgment of guardianship,
supplemented by a thorough, well-reasoned written decision explaining why she
terminated Cindy's parental rights to Amos. This appeal followed.
Judge Kramer's opinion gave thoughtful attention to the importance of
permanency and stability from the perspective of the child's needs, she found
the Division had established by clear and convincing evidence the statutory
grounds for termination of Cindy's parental rights. Furthermore, the judge found
the Division had proven all four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-
15.1(a), which, in the best interest of the child, permits termination of parental
rights. In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347-48 (1999). In 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, 412-13 (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)). We conclude the factual findings of Judge Kramer are fully
A-1345-17T2
4
supported by the record and the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are
unassailable.
Affirmed.
A-1345-17T2
5