DCPP VS. T.R. AND J.R., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.R. AND H.R. (FG-02-0035-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) ( 2019 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NOS. A-5105-17T3
A-5107-17T3
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
T.R. and J.R.,
Defendants-Appellants.
______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF M.R. and H.R.,
Minors.
_______________________________
Submitted September 19, 2019 – Decided September 26, 2019
Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County,
Docket No. FG-02-0035-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant T.R. (Marina Ginzburg, Designated Counsel,
on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant J.R. (Phuong Vinh Dao, Designated Counsel,
on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jason Wade Rockwell, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Jane S. Blank, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minors (Joseph Hector Ruiz, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendants T.R. and J.R. appeal from a June 22, 2018 order terminating
their parental rights to two of their children, M.R. and H.R. 1 After an eight-day
trial, Judge William R. DeLorenzo, Jr. issued a 133-page written opinion finding
that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) had satisfied
all four prongs of the best interests of the child test set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-
15.1(a), justifying termination of defendants' parental rights. We affirm.
Judge DeLorenzo's opinion reviewed the evidence in great detail. A
summary will suffice here. T.R., the mother of the children, has a history of
1
We use initials to protect the family's privacy.
A-5105-17T3
2
untreated substance abuse and mental health issues. She had been unable or
unwilling to provide a safe and stable home for her children for more than three
years at the time of trial. The Division became involved when the family was
facing imminent eviction from a home in disarray with no heat or hot water. The
children were compelled to bathe at the homes of relatives, did not regularly
attend school, were poorly supervised, and periodically suffered from food
insecurity. T.R. displayed hoarding behavior, which contributed to a state of
chaos in the home.
J.R., the father of the children and T.R.'s spouse, also lived in the home ,
but took no steps to assure the safety of the children, the payment of rent, the
maintenance of the home, or the children's attendance at school. Although J.R.
worked regularly, providing for the children's needs was not a priority for him.
J.R. has a history of gambling and substance abuse. He admitted to being under
the influence of cocaine and heroin while living with the children. He was
treated successfully and, at the time of trial, his substance abuse was in
remission. However, he tested positive for suboxone, a substance abuse
medication, shortly before the trial and could not explain why he had ingested
the drug. Defendants had a tumultuous relationship, including incidents of
A-5105-17T3
3
domestic violence. The children were exposed to a violent episode between T.R.
and her older daughter, who is not the subject of this appeal.
The Division removed the children from defendants' custody and placed
them with a maternal relative. The resource parent has provided a stable and
supportive home for the children. They have been attending school, where they
are doing well, are participating in extracurricular activities, and have expressed
a desire to remain with their resource parent, who wishes to adopt them. The
children would like to remain in limited contact with their parents after adoption.
The trial court found credible the resource parent's expressed intention to
continue to permit visitation if she is allowed to adopt the children.
Although defendants were provided with liberal visitation rights, neither
made a consistent effort to visit the children. T.R. relocated a number of times,
including to California and Hawaii, to enroll in substance abuse programs. The
record contains no evidence of T.R. having successfully completed any program.
In addition, when T.R. was not enrolled in a program, her housing was unstable.
She lived in various shelters and at one point reported she was sleeping on a
California beach. J.R., although geographically close to the children, rarely
visited them and refused to acknowledge that his inconsistent presence in their
lives caused them harm. Although the resource parent provided each child with
A-5105-17T3
4
a cellphone and permitted unlimited telephone and text communication between
the children and their parents prior to the children's bedtime, neither T.R. nor
J.R. maintained consistent contact with their children.
The defendants did not develop a realistic plan for reunification with the
children, the provision of stable housing, or their long-term care. T.R. is
unemployed, continues to struggle with substance abuse, does not take her
psychiatric medications regularly, and does not have a permanent residence.
Although J.R. has a home, he does not maintain consistent visitation with the
children and continues to have a volatile relationship with T.R., with whom he
has periodically lived.2 The Division has repeatedly attempted to facilitate J.R.'s
reunification with the children.
The trial court found credible expert testimony that the benefit of
terminating defendants' parental rights to permit adoption by the resource parent
would outweigh any harm visited on the children. The court accepted the expert
opinion that while the children love their parents, they are aware that they cannot
provide a safe and stable home for them and would be harmed by removal from
the supportive environment provided by their resource parent.
2
At one point, T.R. returned from California with a boyfriend. J.R. permitted
his wife and her boyfriend to live in his home.
A-5105-17T3
5
On appeal, T.R. argues the following points:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING
[T.R.'S] PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE THE
STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION
WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
CHILDREN UNDER N.J.S.A. 30:4C[-]15 AND
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1.
A. [T.R.'S] ACTIONS DID NOT AFFECT THE
CHILDREN'S SAFETY, HEALTH OR
DEVELOPMENT AND CONTINUING THE
PARENT RELATIONSHIP WILL NOT ENDANGER
THE CHILDREN AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE
FIRST PRONG OF THE "BEST INTEREST[S]"
TEST.
B. [T.R.] IS ABLE AND WILLING TO PROVIDE
HER CHILDREN WITH A SAFE AND STABLE
HOME AND THE DELAY OF PERMANENT
PLACEMENT WILL NOT HARM THE CHILDREN
AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE SECOND PRONG
OF THE "BEST INTEREST[S]" TEST.
C. THE DIVISION DID NOT MAKE
REASONABLE EFFORTS PURSUANT TO THE
THIRD PRONG OF THE "BEST INTEREST[S]"
TEST TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE FAMILY
WHICH WOULD HELP [T.R.] CORRECT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH RESULTED IN HER
BEING SEPARATED FROM HER SON.
D. TERMINATION OF [T.R.'S] PARENTAL
RIGHTS WILL CAUSE MORE HARM THAN GOOD
TO [H.R.] AND [M.R.] AS CONTEMPLATED BY
THE FOURTH PRONG OF THE "BEST
INTEREST[S]" TEST AS IT WILL PERMANENTLY
A-5105-17T3
6
SEVER[] THE CHILDREN'S TIES TO THEIR
PARENTS.
J.R. raises the following points for our consideration:
THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN
SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT
TERMINATION OF J.R.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS TO
M.R. AND H.R. IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS,
THEREFORE, THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT
TERMINATING J.R.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS MUST
BE VACATED.
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT
FOUND THAT J.R.'S PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP
PRESENTED A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM TO
M.R. AND H.R.
II. THE TRIAL COURT WAS WRONG WHEN IT
CONCLUDED J.R. WAS UNABLE OR UNWILLING
TO MITIGATE THE HARM THAT MIGHT RESULT
FROM REUNIFICATION.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
CONCLUDING [THE DIVISION'S] SERVICES
WERE REASONABLE TO SATISFY PRONG
THREE.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT
FOUND THAT M.R. AND H.R. WOULD BE
HARMED FROM CONTINUED CONTACT WITH
THEIR FATHER.
Our review of Judge DeLorenzo's decision is limited and deferential. We
will not disturb a trial judge's factual findings so long as they are supported by
substantial credible evidence. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G.,
A-5105-17T3
7
217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). We defer to the judge's evaluation of witness
credibility and to his expertise in family court matters. Id. at 552-53.
After carefully reviewing the record in light of the applicable precedents,
we conclude that substantial credible evidence supports Judge DeLorenzo's
decision. There is no basis for us to disturb his well-reasoned determination that
the Division has established by clear and convincing evidence that termination
of defendants' parental rights was warranted. We therefore affirm the June 22,
2018 order for the reasons stated in the judge's comprehensive written opinion.
Defendants' arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion
in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-5105-17T3
8