DCPP VS. C.T. IN THE MATTER OF E.H.(FN-02-0277-15, BERGEN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5188-15T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
C.T.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF E.H.,
A minor.
_________________________________
Submitted September 26, 2017 – Decided October 24, 2017
Before Judges Sumners and Moynihan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County,
Docket No. FN-02-0277-15.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Robert W. Ratish, Designated
counsel, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mehnaz
Rahim, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for minor (Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
The Division of Child Protection and Permanency filed this
action charging defendant with emotional abuse and neglect of her
then twelve-year-old daughter E.H., as a result of defendant's
alcohol abuse, threat to attempt suicide while E.H. was present,
and inappropriate parenting behavior. Following a fact-finding
hearing, Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca issued an order on March 10,
2016, determining that defendant's conduct constituted abuse and
neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b).
On appeal, defendant argues the judge failed to consider
evidence of E.H.'s behavioral issues and defendant's mental
illness. Defendant also contends the judge erred in relying on
contested testimony and did not consider the reasons defendant
terminated E.H.'s relationship with defendant's allegedly abusive
ex-boyfriend, who was a father figure to E.H. We find insufficient
merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge
Gallina-Mecca in her thorough, well-reasoned oral decision
covering sixty transcript pages. Her findings were based on
2 A-5188-15T1
substantial evidence she found credible and, for that reason, we
must defer to those findings. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394,
411-13 (1974); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. H.B., 375
N.J. Super. 148, 172 (App. Div. 2005). Finding no principled
reason for second-guessing the judge's findings or the conclusions
drawn from those findings, we reject defendant's arguments.
Affirmed.
3 A-5188-15T1