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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NOS. A-5662-16T3
A-5663-16T3
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
T.H. and J.N.,
Defendants-Appellants.
______________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF A.N. and H.N., Minors.
______________________________________
Submitted October 2, 2018 – Decided October 15, 2018
Before Judges Suter, Geiger and Firko.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County,
Docket No. FG-01-0027-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant T.H. (Carol A. Weil, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant J.N. (Mark E. Kleiman, Designated Counsel,
on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Jennifer Russo-Belles, 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
Defendants T.H. and J.N. 1 appeal from the Family Part's August 11, 2017
judgment of guardianship terminating their parental rights to their daughter,
A.N. born in September 2013, and son, H.N., born in April 2015. Defendants
contend that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed
to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence.
The Law Guardian supports the termination on appeal as it did before the trial
court.
Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied that
the evidence in favor of the guardianship petition overwhelmingly supports the
1
Pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d), we use initials and fictitious names to protect the
confidentiality of the participants in these proceedings.
A-5662-16T3
2
decision to terminate defendants' parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Jeffrey J. Waldman's
comprehensive forty-four page written decision. We add only the following
comments.
A.N. has been in the Division's custody since November 2014 and H.N.
has been in the Division's custody since he was released from the hospital
following his birth. In the months that followed, the Division provided multiple
opportunities for defendants to reunify with their children and address long-
standing substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence issues. None of
these interventions proved successful because defendants did not regularly
participate in services. T.H. was non-compliant with random urine screens. J.N.
has an unresolved history of anger issues. The Division determined it was
necessary to request security when he was present due to his behavior when
interacting with Division employees. Defendants never presented the Division
with any plan for the children's care. They were unable to secure stable housing
even after the Division offered to pay a security deposit. No individuals were
proffered by defendants as possible caregivers for A.N. and H.N. The children
have been living in their current resource home with their half-siblings, and their
resource parents want to adopt them.
A-5662-16T3
3
The Division's expert psychologist, Dr. Alan J. Lee, conducted bonding
evaluations of the children and their resource parents. Dr. Lee concluded that
the children had a positive attachment to the resource parents and would be at
risk of suffering severe and enduring harm if separated from them.
In his written opinion, Judge Waldman reviewed the evidence presented
and thereafter concluded that: (1) the Division had proven all four prongs of the
best interest test by clear and convincing evidence, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a); and
(2) termination of defendants' parental rights was in A.N.'s and H.N.'s best
interests. In this appeal, our review of the Judge Waldman's decision is limited.
We defer to his expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394,
413 (1998), and we are bound by his 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)).
J.N. contends that his due process rights were violated because the judge
refused to relieve his counsel the day trial commenced.2 This argument is
2
J.N. was represented by three different attorneys prior to trial. He did not
appear on the first hearing date. The judge permitted J.N. to make a statement
on his own behalf on the second day of trial.
A-5662-16T3
4
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Judge Waldman's factual
findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, his legal
conclusions are unassailable for the reasons that the judge expressed in his well -
reasoned opinion.
Affirmed.
A-5662-16T3
5
DCPP VS. T.H. AND J.N., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.N. AND H.N. (FG-01-0027-17, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
Combined Opinion