DCPP VS. YU.O.-E. AND R.E., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Y.O.-E. (FG-20-0023-15, UNION 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2851-17T2
A-2942-17T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
R.E. and Yu.O.-E.,
Defendants-Appellants.
_____________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF Y.O.-E.,
a Minor.
______________________________
Argued January 28, 2019 – Decided February 5, 2019
Before Judges Sabatino, Haas and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket
No. FG-20-0023-15.
Louis W. Skinner, Designated Counsel, argued the
cause for appellant R.E. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public
Defender, attorney; Louis W. Skinner, on the briefs).
Clara S. Licata, Designated Counsel, argued the cause
for appellant Yu.O.-E. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public
Defender, attorney; Clara S. Licata, on the briefs).
Julie B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General, attorney; Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Julie B. Colonna, on the
brief).
Todd S. Wilson, Designated Counsel, argued the cause
for minor (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney; Meredith A. Pollock, Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel; Todd S. Wilson, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
In these two consolidated cases, defendants Yu.O.-E.1 and R.E. appeal
from the February 13, 2018 judgment of guardianship terminating their parental
rights to their daughter, Y.O.-E. (Yvonne), born in December 2013. Defendants
contend that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed
to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C:15-1(a) by clear and convincing
1
We refer to defendants by initials, and to their child by a fictitious name, to
protect their privacy. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
A-2851-17T2
2
evidence. The Law Guardian supports the termination on appeal as it did before
the trial court.
Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied that
the evidence in favor of the guardianship petition overwhelmi ngly supports the
decision to terminate defendants' parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge James Hely's thorough oral
decision rendered on February 13, 2018.
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with
defendants. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal
conclusions contained in Judge Hely's thoughtful decision. We add the
following comments.
The Division assumed custody of Yvonne just seven days after her birth,
and the child has never lived with either defendant. Yu.O.-E suffers from a
number of mental health issues that have prevented her from caring for Yvonne
or any of her five other children. 2 R.E. has been incarcerated for almost all of
Yvonne's life, and previously engaged in domestic violence against Yu.O.-E.
We are satisfied that the Division provided multiple opportunities for defendants
2
R.E. is the father of four of Yu.O.-E.'s children, including Yvonne.
A-2851-17T2
3
to reunify with their child, but they were unable to overcome the deficiencies
that prevented them from safely parenting her.
Yvonne has special needs, and has been diagnosed with Reactive
Attachment Disorder. Because of this condition, the child is prone to acts of
verbal and physical aggression.
The Division placed Yvonne with her current resource parents in
November 2016. The resource parents worked with the child's school and
treatment program to obtain the special help and therapy needed to address her
condition. According to Yvonne's licensed clinical social worker, Nicole
Bolognini, Yvonne's behavioral issues improved due to the efforts of the
resource parents, who wish to adopt the child.
The Division's expert psychologist, Karelyn Gonzalez-Cruz, Ph.D.,
testified that she had served as Yu.O.-E.'s individual therapist since January
2017. Dr. Gonzalez-Cruz stated that Yu.O.-E. did not regularly attend her
therapy appointments. In addition, Yu.O.-E. did not always take her psychiatric
medication as directed and, as a result, now had to be injected with these drugs
on a monthly basis to ensure compliance with her medication regimen.
Another expert psychologist, Elizabeth Groisser, Psy.D., conducted
evaluations of both defendants on behalf of the Division. Dr. Groisser stated
A-2851-17T2
4
that Yu.O.-E. suffered from Schizoaffective Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, and had some borderline personality traits. Based on this diagnosis,
and her failure to comply with treatment, Dr. Groisser opined that Yu.O.-E. was
not able to parent Yvonne independently.
After evaluating R.E., Dr. Groisser testified that he was also not capable
of parenting Yvonne now or in the foreseeable future. Dr. Groisser noted that
R.E. had had very little involvement in the child's life, had no history of stability
in his own life, and had not demonstrated that he was capable of living on his
own and taking care of himself. Under these circumstances, Dr. Groisser opined
that R.E. could not safely parent a special needs child.
Dr. Groisser conducted bonding evaluations between defendants and
Yvonne. Dr. Groisser opined that while Yvonne and defendants were familiar
with each other, the child did not view them as parental figures, and would suffer
no real harm if their parental rights were terminated.
On the other hand, Dr. Groisser found that Yvonne had significant and
positive bonds with both of her resource parents. Dr. Groisser opined that
severing these bonds would be extremely detrimental to Yvonne.
Yu.O.-E. testified at trial, and also presented the testimony of an expert
psychiatrist, who opined that Yu.O.-E. could safely parent Yvonne. However,
A-2851-17T2
5
this expert acknowledged that she had not evaluated Yu.O.-E.'s interactions with
the child, or Yvonne's special needs. As a result, Judge Hely found that the
expert's opinion that Yu.O.-E. could safely parent a child with special needs was
not credible. R.E. did not testify at trial, and presented no other witnesses.
In his opinion, Judge Hely reviewed the evidence presented and concluded
that (1) the Division had proven all four prongs of the best interests test by clear
and convincing evidence, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and (2) termination of
defendants' parental rights was in the child's best interests. The judge also
concluded that kinship legal guardianship (KLG) was not an appropriate
alternative to termination in this case because the resource parents want to adopt
Yvonne. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494, 512-13
(2004) (holding that "when the permanency provided by adoption is available,
[KLG] cannot be used as a defense to termination of parental rights").
In this appeal, our review of the trial judge's decision is limited. We defer
to his expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413
(1998), and we are bound by his factual findings so long as they are supported
by sufficient credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M.,
189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (citing In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172,
188 (App. Div. 1993)). "[W]e [also] rely on the trial court's acceptance of the
A-2851-17T2
6
credibility of the expert's testimony and the court's fact-findings based thereon,
noting that the trial court is better positioned to evaluate the witness' credibility,
qualifications, and the weight to be accorded to [his or] her testimony." In re
Guardianship of DMH, 161 N.J. 365, 382 (1999) (citing Bonnco Petrol, Inc. v.
Epstein, 115 N.J. 599, 607 (1989)).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Judge Hely's factual findings
are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, his legal conclusions
are unassailable. We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons that the judge
expressed in his well-reasoned, comprehensive opinion.
Affirmed.
A-2851-17T2
7