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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4735-16T4
A-4736-16T4
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
E.B. and M.B.,
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF K.B.,
A Minor.
____________________________________
Submitted May 23, 2018 — Decided June 15, 2018
Before Judges Koblitz, Manahan, Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County,
Docket No. FG-04-0146-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant E.B. (Dianne Glenn, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant M.B. (Louis W. Skinner,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Jennifer A.
Lochel, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minor (Caitlin
McLaughlin, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendants E.B. (Erin) and M.B. (Martin) appeal from a June
21, 2017 Family Part order terminating their parental rights to
their son K.B. (Kyon), who was one year old at the time of the
guardianship trial.1 Their appeals have been consolidated. The
law guardian supports the termination. We affirm substantially
for the reasons stated by Judge Francine I. Axelrad in her thorough
oral opinion.
The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's opinion.
A summary will suffice here. Kyon was born in 2016 and tested
positive for marijuana at birth, as did his mother, Erin. He was
immediately removed and placed with a relative, and is now in the
care of his maternal aunt, who has adopted his three older
siblings. The parents voluntarily surrendered their rights to the
1
Pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d)(12), we use initials and pseudonyms
to refer to the parties.
2 A-4735-16T2
three older children in November 2015.2 Kyon was thriving in the
home and had no special needs.
The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division)
was involved with the family beginning in 2012. Erin had trouble
providing sufficient food or a habitable home for the older
children. Although she completed parenting classes in 2014, she
was unable to comply with numerous drug and home-making services.
She repeatedly tested positive for marijuana and PCP, and was
diagnosed with severe psychiatric disorders.
Martin had experienced a history of strokes. The Division's
expert found "evidence of significant cognitive limitations that
are expected to interfere with safe and effective parenting."
Another Division expert found that his "neurocognitive deficits"
rendered him unable to parent alone. He also suffered from various
psychiatric disorders. A third Division expert found that Erin
and Martin were unable to compensate for each other's parenting
deficits. They also had a history of domestic violence.
One of the Division experts opined that Kyon was not securely
bonded to his parents, and after two months with his current
caretakers had begun to form a secure bond living with them and
his siblings. Although both parents testified, they presented no
2
Martin is not the father of the oldest child.
3 A-4735-16T2
expert evidence. Erin was unable to control her anger in the
courtroom.
In her comprehensive opinion, Judge Axelrad found the
Division had proven all four prongs of the best interests test,
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and that termination of defendants'
parental rights was in the child's best interests. On this appeal,
our review of the trial 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) (citing
In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div.
1993)). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial
judge's factual findings are fully supported by the record and,
in light of those facts, her legal conclusions are unassailable.
Martin contends that the trial judge erred in considering
evidence of the parents' history with the older children based on
the Division's files. Defendant also asserts that the judge erred
in finding that he harmed Kyon, because Kyon never lived with his
parents and suffered no known ill effects from the marijuana in
his system at birth. Erin argues that the Division did not prove
all four prongs by clear and convincing evidence. Those arguments
4 A-4735-16T2
are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We note only that "proof of abuse or neglect of one child"
is "admissible evidence on the issue of the abuse or neglect of
any other child . . . ." N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(1). "Courts need
not wait to act until a child is actually irreparably impaired by
parental inattention or neglect." In re Guardianship of D.M.H.,
161 N.J. 365, 383 (1999).
Affirmed.
5 A-4735-16T2