DCPP VS. M.D. AND M.B. IN THE MATTER OF G.D. (FN-06-0164-15, CUMBERLAND 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1920-15T3
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
M.D.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
M.B.,
Defendant.
_______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF G.D.,
Minor.
_______________________________
Submitted October 19, 2017 – Decided October 27, 2017
Before Judges Haas and Rothstadt.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Cumberland
County, Docket No. FN-06-0164-15.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (John A. Salois, Designated
Counsel, on the briefs).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Angela
Juneau Bezer, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minor (Noel C. Devlin,
Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant M.D. appeals from the September 28, 2015 Family
Part order terminating the litigation initiated by the Division
of Child Protection and Permanency for care and custody of his
child, G.D., pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.106 and N.J.S.A.
30:4C-12 (the FN matter), and directing the case to proceed as a
guardianship action under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(c) (the FG matter).
We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Because of the nature of our disposition, and the parties'
familiarity with the lengthy history of this matter, we need only
briefly recite the most pertinent factual and procedural
background. After defendant M.B. gave birth to G.D. in January
2014, the Division learned that the baby was exhibiting symptoms
of drug dependency due to M.B.'s use of the prescription drug
Subutex during her pregnancy.
As a result, the Division commenced the FN matter and,
following a hearing, the trial court granted it care and custody
2 A-1920-15T3
of G.D. The Division placed G.D. with a resource family. In
addition to M.B.'s substance abuse issues, the court found that
M.D. posed an ongoing risk to the baby because he was undergoing
treatment for drug addiction and had an active restraining order
against him in a case involving the mother of another of his
children. While the Division alleged that M.B. had abused or
neglected G.D. under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c), it did not make similar
allegations against M.D.
At the July 2, 2014 fact-finding hearing, the Division agreed
to withdraw the abuse and neglect charges against M.B. in return
for her agreement that her family was in need of services under
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12. M.D. also agreed to participate in services,
including psychological and psychiatric evaluations, substance
abuse evaluations and treatment, and domestic violence
intervention counseling. Unfortunately, neither parent
consistently participated in these services over the next eight
months.
On March 3, 2015, the Division presented its permanency plan
for G.D. Under this plan, the Division would dismiss the pending
FN action, and institute a FG action for the termination of M.D.
and M.B.'s parental rights under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(c).
Concurrently, the Division would continue its efforts to reunite
3 A-1920-15T3
G.D. with one or both of her parents. After a hearing, the trial
court approved the Division's permanency plan.
On April 21, 2015, the Division filed the FG matter.
Following several compliance review hearings, the trial court
dismissed the FN litigation on September 28, 2015. On that same
date, the court entered an order in the FG matter continuing G.D.
in the Division's care and custody and ordering M.D. and M.B. to
participate in services. This appeal followed.1
On appeal, M.D. challenges the trial court's approval of the
Division's permanency plan. However, it is well settled that the
Division's "filing of a [FG matter] and the entry in that action
of an order regarding custody and related matters such as
visitation, which[, as here] supersedes any orders entered in the
[FN matter], moots the parent's appeal from the dismissal of the
[FN matter] before an adjudication of abuse and neglect." N.J.
Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.P., 408 N.J. Super. 252, 255
(App. Div. 2009), certif. denied, 201 N.J. 153 (2010).
Thus, once the Division filed the FG matter, all issues
concerning the custody of G.D. were governed by that proceeding.
Id. at 261. Likewise, as soon as the FG matter was filed, any
1
At the conclusion of the FG matter, the trial court entered an
order terminating M.D.'s parental rights to G.D. and he has filed
a separate appeal from that final judgment.
4 A-1920-15T3
interlocutory orders entered in the FN matter could "'have no
practical effect on the existing' [FG matter] . . ., which renders
[the present] appeal moot." Id. at 264 (quoting Greenfield v.
N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006)).
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as moot.
5 A-1920-15T3