DCPP VS. R.J.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.A.J.(FG-15-0024-16, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2017 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0609-16T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
R.J.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF J.A.J., a Minor.
________________________________
Submitted September 19, 2017 – Decided October 5, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Gilson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean
County, Docket No. FG-15-0024-16.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Anna Patras, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton
Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Robert D. Guarni, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minor (Phyllis Warren,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant R.J. appeals from an August 25, 2016 order
terminating his parental rights to his son J.A.J., who was born
in 2012. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in Judge
Joseph L. Foster's comprehensive written opinion issued on August
25, 2016.
The evidence is detailed in Judge Foster's opinion and can
be summarized briefly here. Defendant is a drug addict who has
repeatedly relapsed into drug use, despite multiple efforts by the
Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) to provide
him with treatment. Defendant failed a drug test for cocaine
shortly before the trial commenced, and he was discharged from his
most recent drug treatment program for noncompliance. He also has
a history of domestic violence, failed to complete a batterer's
intervention program, and failed to complete an individual
counseling program. The Division produced unrebutted expert
testimony that defendant was unable to safely act as the child's
parent at the time of the trial and would be unable to do so in
the foreseeable future. In his trial testimony, defendant conceded
that he was unable to care for the child, but stated that he
2 A-0609-16T2
preferred that the child be placed with either his paternal
grandfather or maternal grandmother.
The Division initially placed the child with a paternal aunt
in 2014. After about a year, the aunt could not continue taking
care of the child but she recommended family friends, who are now
the child's foster parents. The child has lived with the foster
family since August 2015. He has a parent-child relationship with
them and they are committed to adopting him. According to the
Division's expert, the child does not have a similar parental bond
with defendant. The child's mother voluntarily surrendered her
parental rights in favor of the foster parents.
Before and after placing the child with the aunt, the Division
evaluated several other relatives, who were either unwilling to
care for the child or were ruled out as placements. Pertinent to
this appeal, at the time of the trial, the child's paternal
grandfather had not visited with the child in two years, and had
not appealed from either of two rule-out letters the Division sent
him. The maternal grandmother had only visited the child twice
in two years, and failed to appear for a psychological evaluation
until shortly before the trial.
Based on his evaluation of the trial evidence, including
witness credibility, Judge Foster concluded that the Division had
satisfied the four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A.
3 A-0609-16T2
30:4C-15.1(a). The judge specifically found that the grandfather
was not a credible witness, both grandparents had shown "a manifest
lack of commitment" to the child, and it would not be in the
child's best interests to remove him from his foster family and
place him with either grandparent.
On this appeal, defendant presents the following points of
argument:
The Decision to Terminate Defendant's Parental
Rights was Not Supported by Sufficient
Credible Evidence.
Prongs One & Two: DCPP Failed to
Demonstrate by Clear and Convincing
Evidence a Causal Connection
Between the Father's Actions and
Harm or Imminent Risk of Harm to JJ
and That The Father Was Unwilling or
Unable to Eliminate That Harm.
Prong Three: DCPP Did Not Provide
"Reasonable Efforts", Including an
Inquiry Into Alternatives to
Termination.
Prong Four: The Trial Court Erred in
Finding That The Termination of the
Father's Parental Rights Will Not Do
More Harm Than Good.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Judge
Foster's factual findings are supported by substantial credible
evidence, and his legal conclusions are unassailable in light of
those findings. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G.,
217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). Defendant's appellate arguments are
4 A-0609-16T2
based on testimony the judge did not find credible and are
otherwise not supported by the record. His contentions are without
sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
5 A-0609-16T2