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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3635-18T3
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
T.D.B.-S.
Defendant-Appellant,
and
D.M.S., III,
Defendant.
_____________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF D.O.Z.B.,
a Minor.
_____________________________
Submitted January 21, 2020 – Decided January 31, 2020
Before Judges Sabatino and Sumners.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County,
Docket No. FG-04-0119-19.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public Defender,
of counsel; Durrell Wachtler Ciccia, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Amy Melissa Young, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (James Joseph Gross, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
After a two-day guardianship trial in this Title 30 case, the Family Part
terminated the parental rights of T.D.B.-S. (the "mother") and D.M.S., III (the
"father") to their biological son, D.O.Z.B. ("Dante").1 The mother now appeals
the trial court's decision. The Law Guardian and the Division of Child
Protection and Permanency urge that we uphold that decision. We affirm.
The record shows that Dante was removed from the mother's care at the
hospital within a week of his birth in June 2017, and placed in a resource home
1
We use initials and fictitious names to protect the identity of the parties. R.
1:38-3(d)(12).
A-3635-18T3
2
where he has since resided. The removal occurred after the hospital alerted the
Division because of the parents' history with the Division that dates back to
2007.
The parents have two other children together, both of whom are in foster
care. In addition, the mother has an adult daughter and a grandchild from that
daughter. The mother first came to the Division's attention after she had
abandoned that daughter, who was then age fifteen, and the grandchild.
The unrebutted evidence shows the mother has a long history of mental
health illness. Among other things, she has three previous suicide attempts. She
exhibits paranoia. At various times relevant to this case, she has been homeless
or living in a motel.
After removing Dante, the Division repeatedly attempted to provide the
mother with a variety of services, including mental health therapy, visitation ,
parenting classes, and housing assistance. The mother resisted the therapy,
contending she did not need it. As of the time of trial, the mother continued to
have unresolved mental health problems. She was disruptive many times during
the trial by making noises and physical gestures, which were noted in the trial
court's opinion. The court noted that this behavior was consistent with
descriptions of the mother's inappropriate behavior during visitation. She took
A-3635-18T3
3
the witness stand in her own defense and at times engaged in digressive
commentary. The court found her testimony was "evasive and incredulous."
The father defaulted in this case and has not provided a suitable placement
for Dante. He has not appealed the termination of his own parental rights.
The Division presented testimony by a psychologist, Dr. Linda Jeffrey, as
an expert witness at trial. Dr. Jeffrey conducted a hearing evaluation between
Dante and his resource mother and concluded he had formed a secure attachment
to her. The resource mother stated she was willing to adopt Dante. Dr. Jeffrey
was unable to complete a bonding evaluation with the mother because she left
the session early and did not appear when the session was rescheduled.
The trial court found Dr. Jeffrey's unrebutted testimony to be credible.
Among other things, Dr. Jeffrey opined that Dante would be at risk to suffer
serious and enduring harm if the secure attachment to his resource mother was
severed. She testified that Dante would likely be developmentally impaired if
he were placed in unstable housing with a caretaker, such as his mother, who
had unresolved mental health issues.
The Division explored possible relative placements for Dante and found
no realistic options. The Division also investigated tribal authorities at the
mother's suggestion but received no information that the mother or her family
A-3635-18T3
4
members were registered members of either tribe. The Division explained to
the resource mother the concept of Kinship Legal Guardianship ("KLG"). She
declined to pursue such a KLG arrangement and instead preferred to adopt.
At the conclusion of the proofs, the trial judge found the Division had
established all four prongs required to terminate parental rights under N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.1(a)(1) through (4); see also In re Guardianship of K.H.O. 161 N.J.
337, 346 (1999).
In this appeal, the mother contends that the weight of the evidence is
insufficient to support the trial court's findings as to all four factors. Among
other things the mother contends that, despite her troublesome history and
persisting mental health issues, she can become a fit parent. She also stresses
that she attended several supervised visitations with Dante, and took advantage
of many, if not all, of the services offered to her. She blames her lack of
significant progress in therapy upon a poor "match" for her needs and contends
the Division should have assigned her a different therapist. She provides no
counterproof showing that Dante is not attached to his resource mother or doing
well in her care.
Our scope of review in Title 30 guardianship cases is limited. The trial
court's findings in such cases generally should be upheld so long as they are
A-3635-18T3
5
supported by "adequate, substantial, and credible evidence." N.J. Div. of Youth
& Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). The court's decision should
only be reversed or altered on appeal if its 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). We must give substantial deference to
the trial judge's opportunity to have observed the witnesses first-hand and to
evaluate their credibility. R.G., 217 N.J. at 552. We must also recognize the
expertise of the Family Part in matters involving the alleged abuse or neglect of
children. See, e.g., N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420,
448 (2012); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.J.D., 428 N.J. Super. 451,
476 (App. Div. 2012).
Applying these principles to the evidence in this case, we reject the
mother's arguments to set aside the final judgment of guardianship. All four
prongs of the statutory criteria are abundantly supported by the record. The trial
court's decision comports in all respects with the law.
We therefore affirm the termination of appellant's parental rights,
substantially for the sound reasons detailed in Judge Francine I. Axelrad's April
10, 2019 oral opinion. No further discussion of the judge's wise analysis is
necessary. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
A-3635-18T3
6
Affirmed.
A-3635-18T3
7