DCPP VS. S.W. AND R.D., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.D. (FG-02-0045-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4414-16T2
A-4416-16T2

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

S.W. and R.D.,

Defendants-Appellants.
__________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF A.D., a Minor.
__________________________________

Submitted May 29, 2018 – Decided July 31, 2018

Before Judges Accurso, O'Connor and Vernoia.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County,
Docket No. FG-02-0045-16.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant S.W. (Deric D. Wu, Assistant
Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the
brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant R.D. (Britt J. Salmon-Dhawan,
Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
 Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Julie B.
Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minor (Todd S. Wilson,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

S.W. and R.D. are the biological parents of A.D., who was

born in December 2014. In February 2016, the New Jersey Division

of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) filed a

guardianship complaint naming S.W. and R.D. as defendants. During

a seven-day trial, Judge William R. DeLorenzo, Jr., heard testimony

from four witnesses presented by the Division, and S.W. The judge

issued a detailed written opinion supporting his entry of a

judgment terminating defendants' parental rights and awarding the

Division guardianship of A.D. Defendants filed separate appeals

that were calendared back-to-back, and which we have consolidated

for purposes of this opinion.

S.W. presents the following arguments for our consideration:

POINT I

The Theory Advanced by DCPP and Its Experts
that S.W. Was in Denial About Her Need for
Services is Contradicted by the Record[.]

2 A-4414-16T2
 POINT II

The Court's Reliance on S.W.'s Previous
Arrests and Expert Opinions About S.W.'s
"Aggressive Attitude" Constituted the Use of
Propensity Evidence to Infer a Risk of Harm[.]

POINT III

Dr. Dyer's Opinions Were Largely Unsupported
by the Record or Even His Observations[.]

POINT IV

Termination of Parental Rights Will Do More
Harm Than Good Because the Harm Articulated
in the Decision was Speculative While the Bond
Between A.D. and Her Mother Was Well
Documented[.]

R.D. offers the following arguments:

LEGAL ARGUMENT

THE JUDGMENT OF GUARDIANSHIP SHOULD BE
REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
FINDING THAT THREE OF THE FOUR PRONGS OF THE
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) BEST INTERESTS TEST FOR
THE TERMINATION OF R.D.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD
BEEN MET BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE[.]

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
DIVISION SATISFIED THE FIRST PRONG OF THE BEST
INTERESTS TEST BECAUSE THE DIVISION DID NOT
PROVE THAT R.D.'S PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP HARMED
A.D. OR PUT HER AT CONTINUING RISK OF HARM[.]

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING ON THE SECOND PRONG
SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE
SAME FINDINGS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS AS THE
UNFOUNDED FIRST-PRONG RULING, AND BECAUSE IN

3 A-4414-16T2
 ADDITION THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED
THAT IT WAS FORESEEABLE THAT R.D. WAS UNABLE
OR UNWILLING TO OVERCOME POTENTIAL HARM TO
A.D.

POINT III

R.D. IS ENTITLED TO A REVERSAL BECAUSE THE
EVIDENCE WHICH WAS PRESENTED DID NOT SUPPORT
A FINDING THAT TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
WOULD NOT DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD[.]

Our review of a trial court order terminating parental rights

is limited. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J.

595, 605 (2007). "A Family Part's decision to terminate parental

rights will not be disturbed when there is substantial credible

evidence in the record to support the court's findings." N.J.

Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. K.T.D., 439 N.J. Super. 363,

368 (App. Div. 2015) (citing N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs.

v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012)). "We accord deference to

factfindings of the family court because it has the superior

ability to gauge the credibility of the witnesses who testify

before it and because it possesses special expertise in matters

related to the family." F.M., 211 N.J. at 448 (citing Cesare v.

Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998)). This enhanced deference is

particularly appropriate where the court's findings are founded

upon the credibility of the witnesses' testimony. N.J. Div. of

Youth & Family Servs. v. H.B., 375 N.J. Super. 148, 172 (App. Div.

4 A-4414-16T2
2005) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am.,

65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).

"Only when the trial court's conclusions are so 'clearly

mistaken' or 'wide of the mark' should an appellate court intervene

and make its own findings to ensure that there is not a denial of

justice." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J.

88, 104 (2008) (quoting G.L., 191 N.J. at 605). No deference is

given to the trial court's "interpretation of the law," which we

review de novo. D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232, 245-46 (2012) (citing

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.S., 202 N.J. 145, 183

(2010); Balsamides v. Protameen Chems., 160 N.J. 352, 372 (1999)).

As Judge DeLorenzo correctly recognized, a parent has a

constitutionally protected right "to enjoy a relationship with his

or her child." In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 346

(1999). That right, however, "is not absolute," and is limited

"by the State's parens patriae responsibility to protect children

whose vulnerable lives or psychological well-being may have been

harmed or may be seriously endangered by a neglectful or abusive

parent." F.M., 211 N.J. at 447 (citing E.P., 196 N.J. at 102).

A parent's interest must, at times, yield to the State's obligation

to protect children from harm. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs.

v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382, 397 (2009).

5 A-4414-16T2
 When terminating parental rights, the court must consider the

"best interests of the child." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 347. The

Division's petition to terminate parental rights may only be

granted if the following four prongs enumerated in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-

15.1(a) are established by clear and convincing evidence:

(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
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 criteria enumerated in the best interests standard are

not discrete and separate; they relate to and overlap with one

another to provide a comprehensive standard that identifies a

child's best interests." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 348. "[T]he

cornerstone of the inquiry [under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)] is not

6 A-4414-16T2
whether the biological parents are fit but whether they can cease

causing their child harm." In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J.

1, 10 (1992) (citing N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W.,

103 N.J. 591, 607 (1986)).

S.W. argues there is insufficient evidence supporting the

court's findings on the second, third and fourth prongs of the

best interests standard. R.D. contends there is insufficient

evidence supporting the court's determination on each prong. We

are not persuaded. Based on our review of the record, we are

convinced Judge DeLorenzo conducted the required fact-sensitive

analysis of the statutory factors as applied to each defendant,

see K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 348, and his findings are adequately

supported by substantial credible evidence in the record, see

F.M., 211 N.J. at 448. We affirm substantially for the reasons

set forth in his well-reasoned 111-page written decision.

Affirmed.

7 A-4414-16T2