DCPP VS. Y.M.K., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.M.K., JR. (FG-07-0023-18, ESSEX 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3776-17T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Y.M.K.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF A.M.K., JR.,
a Minor.
_____________________________
Submitted February 27, 2019 – Decided May 7, 2019
Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
No. FG-07-0023-18.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Carol A. Weil, Designated Counsel, on the
brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Casey J. Woodruff, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (Meredith A. Pollock, Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel; Cory H. Cassar, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, Y.M.K., appeals from an April 10, 2018 guardianship
judgment terminating her parental rights to her child, A.M.K., now nine years
old. The child's father is deceased. Defendant contends plaintiff, the Division
of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division), failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that terminating her parental rights was in her child's best
interests, the standard codified in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The Division and the
Law Guardian oppose the appeal. We affirm.
Parents have a constitutionally protected, fundamental liberty interest in
the care, custody, and supervision of their children. Santosky v. Kramer, 455
U.S. 745, 753 (1982); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J.
261, 279 (2007). Nonetheless, that interest is not absolute and "must be
A-3776-17T2
2
balanced against the State's parens patriae responsibility to protect the welfare
of children." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605
(2007) (quoting M.M. 189 N.J. at 294-95). In some cases, termination of a
parent's constitutionally protected interest may be necessary to protect a
child. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 599 (1986).
The Division is "the State agency for the care, custody, guardianship,
maintenance and protection of children." State ex rel. J.S., 202 N.J. 465, 477
(2010) (quoting N.J.S.A. 30:4C-2(a)). When the Division seeks to terminate a
person's parental rights, a court must determine if doing so is in the child's or
children's best interests. The "best interests" standard is codified in N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.1(a), which requires the Division prove by clear and convincing
evidence:
(1) The child's safety, health or development has been
or will continue to be endangered by the parental
relationship;
(2) The parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the
harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to
provide a safe and stable home for the child and
the delay of permanent placement will add to the
harm. . . .;
(3) The [D]ivision has made reasonable efforts to
provide services to help the parent correct the
circumstances which led to the child's placement
A-3776-17T2
3
outside the home and the court has considered
alternatives to termination of parental rights; and
(4) Termination of parental rights will not do more
harm than good.
See also A.W., 103 N.J. at 604-11.
Family courts deciding the profound issues involving the welfare of
children have special expertise and their fact finding is entitled to deference by
appellate courts. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). For that reason,
we will not disturb a Family Part judge's findings of fact unless "convinced that
they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent,
relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of
justice." Id. at 412 (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J.
474, 484 (1974)). We owe no deference, however, to "[a] trial court's
interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established
facts." Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378
(1995).
Here, to prove the statutory criteria for terminating parental rights, the
Division presented the testimony of two employees, an Adoption Worker and a
Supervising Family Service Specialist in the Permanency-Adoption unit. The
A-3776-17T2
4
Division also presented the testimony of a psychiatrist and psychologist, and
introduced into evidence fifty-two documentary exhibits.
Defendant testified against the advice of her counsel. Suffice it to say that
her testimony illustrated her significant mental health issues.
Following the guardianship trial, Judge James R. Paganelli issued a
comprehensive written opinion in which he concluded the Division had
sustained its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the statutory
criteria delineated in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1 for terminating parental rights. Judge
Paganelli recounted the psychiatrist's recitation of defendant's "history of
alcohol abuse, psychiatric hospitalization, delusions, grandiosity, and
unkemptness." The judge found significant the psychiatrist's testimony that
defendant's lack of insight into her bi-polar disorder contributed to her inability
to manage and treat her symptoms. The judge also noted the psychiatrist's
diagnosis of defendant's schizoaffective disorder, a combination of bi -polar
disorder and schizophrenia, the latter a psychotic disorder. Judge Paganelli
found credible the psychiatrist's opinion that due to the nature of defendant's
symptoms, namely, her disorganization, "her failure to recognize her own
disorder and how it impacted others, her inability to behave socially, her poor
A-3776-17T2
5
executive functioning, her inability to recognize cues in the environment, she
has been rendered unable to safely parent [her child]."
Judge Paganelli also found credible the testimony of the Division's expert
psychologist, who had examined defendant on four occasions. The judge noted
the psychologist's opinion that defendant's child had come to view defendant "as
a central parental figure in his life" and that should defendant's parental rights
be terminated, the child "would likely experience a negative reaction that would
produce development disruptions." The judge also credited, however, the
psychologist's opinion that defendant was unable to provide her child "with
consistent adequate care and supervision due to her mental illness," and "that
any reaction [the child] may experience from being permanently separated from
his mother could be mitigated through achieving permanency in [a] supportive
home and through psychotherapy."
Last, the judge found credible the psychologist's opinion that "in this
particular case, the risk of harm to [the child], if returned to [defendant's] care,
outweighs the risk of experiencing a negative reaction to termination of their
relationship."
Defendant contends on appeal that the Division did not appropriately
consider alternatives to termination of defendant's parental rights. She insists
A-3776-17T2
6
the Division failed to clearly and convincingly establish the third statutory prong
of the best interests criteria. She also contends the Division failed to prove that
termination of defendant's parental rights would not do more harm than good.
The record refutes defendant's arguments. As Judge Paganelli aptly noted,
"[t]he diligence of the Division's efforts on behalf of a parent is not measured
by their success." The judge detailed the Division's provision of services to
defendant, as well as the Division's consideration of alternatives to termination.
The judge noted the Division had conducted relative assessments and had
attempted to place the child with a sibling in Pennsylvania. The Division's
expert testimony refutes defendant's contention that the Division failed to prove
termination of parental rights would not do more harm than good.
We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Paganelli in
his written opinion. Judge Paganelli's opinion recounts in detail the Division's
proofs, and his analysis of those proofs tracks the statutory elements of N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.1(a). The judge's factual determinations are amply supported b y
credible evidence in the record. Considering defendant's arguments and Judge
Paganelli's decision in light of the record and controlling legal principles, it can
hardly be said that the judge "went so wide of the mark that a mistake must have
been made." M.M., 189 N.J. at 279.
A-3776-17T2
7
Affirmed.
A-3776-17T2
8