DCPP VS. L.C. AND L.W., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.W. AND L.W. (FG-20-0047-18, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NO. A-1948-18T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
L.C.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
L.W.,
Defendant.
_____________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF J.W.
and L.W.,
Minors.
_____________________________
Submitted December 4, 2019 – Decided December 27, 2019
Before Judges Koblitz, Whipple and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket
No. FG-20-0047-18.
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 (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Samuel Fillman, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minors (Margo E.K. Hirsch, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant L.C. (Lori) 1 appeals the December 11, 2018 judgment of
guardianship after a trial terminating her parental rights to her twins J.W. and
L.W. (Joe and Lois). Having reviewed the record, we affirm for the reasons
expressed by Judge James Hely in his opinion delivered from the bench the same
day. We add the following comments.
This is not the first time Lori's parental rights were terminated. On March
11, 2014, Lori entered the Elizabeth Police Department with then six-month-old
1
We use the pseudonyms from defendant's brief for ease of reference and to
protect the identities of the parties.
A-1948-18T2
2
A.W., tearfully telling officers she could no longer handle the baby, which
triggered the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency's
(Division) involvement. A subsequent determination by the Family Part
terminated Lori's parental rights because her failure to manage and address her
psychiatric issues continued to place A.W. at substantial risk of harm. A.W.
was then placed with her paternal grandparents, who adopted her. We affirmed
the judgment of guardianship as to A.W. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency
v. L.C., No. A-3983-15 (App. Div. Apr. 19, 2017).
Lori gave birth to Joe and Lois in North Carolina on May 14, 2015 and
returned with them to New Jersey in July 2015. The twins' father is also A.W.'s
father, L.W. (Leo).2 In September 2015, the Division removed the twins from
Lori because she was not taking her medication or participating in therapy, thus
putting the twins at risk for harm. The twins were placed with their paternal
grandparents, where they remain.
A complaint for guardianship was filed on June 28, 2018, and a trial was
conducted over several days, culminating in the entry of judgment on December
11, 2018. During the trial, the Division presented testimony of three witnesses :
2
Leo executed an identified surrender of the twins to his parents, who also care
for A.W.
A-1948-18T2
3
Lynette Bernardo, the Division adoption worker; Carla Cooke, Ed.D., a
psychology and bonding expert; and Samiris Sostre, M.D., a psychiatrist. Lori
did not testify and presented no witnesses.
Based on his evaluation of the evidence presented, and finding the
Division witnesses to be credible, Judge Hely determined that despite Lori's
compliance with individual therapy services, her significant mental health issues
had not resolved and were either unchanged or had worsened. This appeal
followed.
On appeal Lori argues the trial judge incorrectly applied the legal
principles governing termination of parental rights to the facts, and that the
record was insufficient to satisfy the level of proof necessary to establish Lori
was unable to parent. Lori also argues the Division did not make reasonable
efforts to reunify her with Joe and Lois. We disagree.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Judge Hely's factual
findings are supported by substantial credible evidence, and that his legal
conclusions are sound in light of those findings. See N.J. Div. of Youth &
Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). In particular, we agree with
the trial judge's conclusion that the record convincingly demonstrated Lori has
a serious mental health problem that, even with treatment, is unlikely to improve
A-1948-18T2
4
to a level which would permit safe parenting. We reject the argument that the
Division did not provide reasonable efforts to reunite Lori with the twins, as the
Division continued to provide her with services for three years after the first
guardianship order was entered. The twins now live with their paternal
grandparents and their sibling, A.W., and it was clearly and convincingly proven
that it is in their best interests to remain there.
Lori's other arguments are unavailing and not supported by credible
evidence in the record. Her contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant
further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-1948-18T2
5