DCPP VS. D.L.M. AND J.E.D., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF T.J.M. (FG-09-0133-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2021 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2161-20
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
D.L.M.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
J.E.D. (deceased),
Defendant.
_____________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF
T.J.M., a minor.
_____________________________
Submitted December 16, 2021 – Decided December 23, 2021
Before Judges Haas and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County,
Docket No. FG-09-0133-20.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Caitlin A. McLaughlin, Designated Counsel,
on the briefs).
Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Sara M. Gregory, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (Meredith, Alexis Pollock, Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel; Todd Wilson, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant D.L.M. 1 is the biological mother of T.J.M., 2 born in February
2019. Defendant appeals from the March 18, 2021 judgment of guardianship
terminating her parental rights to the child. Defendant contends 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 evidence. The Law Guardian
supports the termination on appeal as it did before the trial court.
1
We refer to the parties and the child by initials to protect their privacy. R.
1:38-3(d)(12).
2
T.J.M.'s biological father, J.E.D., passed away in August 2019.
A-2161-20
2
Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied that
the evidence in favor of the guardianship petition overwhelmingly supports the
decision to terminate defendant's parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Bernadette N. DeCastro in her
thorough written decision rendered on March 18, 2021.
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's interactions with
defendant and the child. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual
findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge DeCastro's decision. We add
the following brief comments.
At birth, T.J.M. tested positive for phencyclidine (PCP). Defendant
admitted using this drug for the past ten years, including the day before she gave
birth to the child. Hospital staff treated T.J.M. in the NICU as he went through
withdrawal, and the Division removed the child from defendant's custody when
the hospital discharged him a month later. The Division placed T.J.M. with his
two resource parents, who have cared for him since March 2019. The child has
thrived in that placement and the resource parents wish to adopt him.
After the removal, the Division offered defendant numerous services to
help her reunite with her child. But defendant failed to engage or take any
A-2161-20
3
meaningful steps to address the long-standing problems that prevented her from
safely parenting T.J.M.
Dr. Elizabeth Stilwell, the Division's expert in psychology, conducted a
bonding evaluation between T.J.M. and defendant. Dr. Stilwell found that the
child had "a familiarity" with defendant but had no significant bond with her.
On the other hand, T.J.M. had "a secure, healthy attachment" to his resource
parents. Dr. Stilwell opined that T.J.M. would suffer significant and enduring
harm if his relationship with the resource parents was severed.
Defendant declined to complete any psychological tests. Dr. Stilwell
concluded defendant's long history of substance abuse prevented her from
providing T.J.M. with adequate care and supervision, and that her capacity to do
so would not likely improve in the foreseeable future.
Defendant testified at trial. She did not present any expert witnesses to
contradict Dr. Stilwell's opinions.
In her thoughtful decision, Judge DeCastro reviewed the evidence
presented at trial 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 defendant's parental rights was in T.J.M.'s best
interests. In this appeal, our review of the trial judge's decision is limited. We
A-2161-20
4
defer to her expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394,
413 (1998), and we are bound by her factual findings so long as they are
supported by sufficient credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v.
M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 278-79 (2007) (citing In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J.
Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)).
Applying these principles, we conclude that Judge DeCastro's factual
findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, her legal
conclusions are unassailable. Children are entitled to a permanent, safe an d
secure home. We acknowledge "the need for permanency of placements by
placing limits on the time for a birth parent to correct conditions in anticipation
of reuniting with the child." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. C.S., 367 N.J.
Super. 76, 111 (App. Div. 2004). As public policy increasingly focuses on a
child's need for permanency, the emphasis has "shifted from protracted efforts
for reunification with a birth parent to an expeditious, permanent placement to
promote the child's well-being." Ibid. (citing N.J.S.A. 30:4C-11.1). That is
because "[a] child cannot be held prisoner of the rights of others, even those of
his or her parents. Children have their own rights, including the right to a
permanent, safe and stable placement." Ibid.A-2161-20
5
The question then is "whether the parent can become fit in time to meet
the needs of the children." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 375 N.J.
Super. 235, 263 (App. Div. 2005); see also N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v.
P.P., 180 N.J. 494, 512 (2004) (indicating that even if a parent is trying to
change, a child cannot wait indefinitely). After carefully considering the
evidence, Judge DeCastro reasonably determined that defendant was unable to
parent T.J.M. and would not be able to do so for the foreseeable future. Under
those circumstances, we agree with the judge that any further delay of permanent
placement would not be in the child's best interests.
Affirmed.
A-2161-20
6