DCPP v. R.L. AND B.G., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.G. AND J.G. (FG-03-0022-21, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2022 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3226-20
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
R.L.,
Defendant,
and
B.G.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF K.G.
and J.G., minors.
________________________
Submitted August 2, 2022 – Decided August 23, 2022
Before Judges Sumners and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County,
Docket No. FG-03-0022-21.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Catherine Reid, Designated Counsel, on the
briefs).
Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General, attorney
for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Amy M. Young, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minors (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel; Jennifer M. Sullivan,
Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
After a four-day guardianship trial in this Title 30 case, Family Part
Judge Richard L. Hertzberg terminated the parental rights of R.L. (the "mother")
and B.G. ("Bill") to their twenty-one-month-old special needs twin sons, K.G.
and J.G. (collectively referred to as "boys," "sons," or "twins"). 1 Only Bill
appeals the trial court's decision. The Law Guardian and the Division of Child
Protection and Permanency (Division) urge that we uphold that decision. We
affirm.
1
We use initials and fictitious names to protect the identity of the parties. R.
1:38-3(d)(12).
A-3226-20
2
I
The evidence is outlined in the judge's oral opinion. A summary relevant
to Bill's appeal will suffice here.
Following their premature birth, the boys tested positive for cocaine due
to R.L.'s drug use during the pregnancy and remained hospitalized for
approximately six weeks.2 The Division conducted an emergency removal when
the boys were released from the hospital and placed them in a resource home.
At a court hearing two days later, the emergency removal was upheld, and the
Division immediately made referrals for substance abuse evaluations and
treatment, psychological evaluations, random urine screenings, and a supervised
visitation service.
The unrebutted evidence shows that Bill has had a long history of
unemployment and drug addiction that he has been unable to control, despite the
Division's assistance with treatment, leading to multiple periods of
incarceration. Bill's addiction and incarceration also limited his ability to
consistently visit with his sons.
2
Because the twins suffered no symptoms of withdrawal, the Division
concluded that abuse and neglect was "not established."
A-3226-20
3
The Division presented the testimony of Brian Eig, Psy.D., who was
qualified as an expert in forensic and clinical psychology. Dr. Eig diagnosed
Bill with "unspecified personality disorder with antisocial and narcissistic
traits[,] as well as unspecified substance abuse disorder in early remission." He
explained that Bill's antisocial and narcissistic pathologies negatively impacted
all four factors of parenting: nurturance, protection, guidance, and stability. He
opined that even if Bill committed to change, it would likely take him "at least
a couple years of intense therapy" to correct these conditions; thus, Bill's
prognosis for rehabilitation was poor. Dr. Eig concluded that Bill would not be
a minimally adequate parent and recommended against reunification with his
sons.
On the other hand, Dr. Eig concluded the boys had a strong, positive, and
warm relationship with the resource parents, consistent with a secure
attachment. He opined that the boys would be at high risk of suffering severe
and enduring harm if separated from their resource parents.
Gina Cordelle, the family's Division case worker, also testified on behalf
of the Division. She detailed the Division's plan for the boys was adoption by
their resource parents, who were interested in adopting. She stated the resource
parents told her they were willing to allow the boys to remain in contact with
A-3226-20
4
Bill and his family. She further testified that the Division was unable to identify
any of Bill's or R.L.'s family members who were willing to care for the boys.
The Law Guardian presented the expert testimony of Gregory C. Gambone
Ph.D., who had conducted a psychological evaluation of Bill, and bonding
evaluations between the boys and Bill, as well as the boys and the resource
parents. Dr. Gambone opined that Bill's plans to reunite with his sons were
merely aspirational. The doctor stated that Bill's cognitive functioning was
sufficient to parent and that he could, in time, become an adequate parent, but
that he was not yet capable of adequately parenting his sons on an independent
basis and had minimal chance of rising to the level of parental adequacy at any
point during their childhood. Dr. Gambone also expressed concern about the
possibility of a drug relapse or reincarceration due to Bill's repeat recovery-court
violations.
Bill's bonding evaluation with his sons conducted by Dr. Gambone did not
go well. Bill was unable to control their behavior, so Dr. Gambone terminated
the observation session early. In contrast, Dr. Gambone's observation of the
boys with the resource parents led him to conclude that the resource parents
"appear[ed] to serve the principal psychological functions of mother and father."
A-3226-20
5
He opined that terminating the relationship with the resource parents would be
"devastating" to the boys, and Bill would not be able to mitigate the harm.
Bill testified on his own behalf. He acknowledged that he was not ready
to take custody of his sons immediately upon completing his drug treatment
program, estimating he would need six to eight months after completing the
program before being ready to raise his sons. Bill discussed his two employment
options and his sister's efforts to find him a place to live. Bill testified he wanted
to make the necessary changes to care for his sons, and if they were returned to
him, he wanted them to maintain a relationship with their resource parents.
In his oral decision, Judge Hertzberg thoroughly detailed his factual
findings and analyzed all four prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), concluding that
it was in the boys' best interests for Bill's rights to be terminated. The judge
found Bill's testimony lacking in credibility, concluding his plans for
employment and housing were not concrete but mere "possibilities," and his plan
that he would be ready to properly parent the boys within six to eight months
after leaving his drug treatment program was tenuous. The judge therefore
found Bill had no concrete plans and had not demonstrated the ability to parent.
He cited to Bill's substance abuse, criminal activity, inability to remain
consistent with services, and problematic personality traits as evidence of
A-3226-20
6
continued risk. Noting that substance abuse alone is not a basis for termination
of parental rights, the court found that Bill's history reflects his inability to
comply with services.
Judge Hertzberg was satisfied the Division had provided Bill "numerous
services," such as visitation, psychological evaluations, urine screens, referrals
to substance abuse treatment, and transportation. The judge also found the
Division made efforts to seek alternatives to termination of parental rights
through family members, but there were no viable options.
Finding Drs. Eig and Gambone and caseworker Cordelle credible, Judge
Hertzberg determined the boys would suffer harm if the resource parents'
relationship was severed, that Bill would be unable to mitigate that harm, and
that the resource parents were willing to allow Bill to remain in his sons' lives.
He concluded the twins "deserve[d] permanency" with the foster parents, whom
they consider to be their mother and father, and there was no prospect that Bill
would reach the point of being able to serve as a competent parent in a
reasonable time. The judge noted that termination of Bill's parental rights was
not based solely on his incarceration, but rather the personality traits that led to
his incarceration were the same traits that rendered him incapable of parenting.
A-3226-20
7
II
In this appeal, Bill contends the trial judge erred in finding the Division
met its burden to prove: he harmed the children; he was unable or unwilling to
parent his sons and it was not reasonably foreseeable that he would be able to
parent his sons in the future; services were provided to help him reunify with
his sons; it considered alternatives to termination of parental rights, specifically
the option of kinship legal guardian; and that termination of his parental rights
would not do more harm than good because the record did not show that
termination of his parental rights would result in a permanent home for the boys
and the bonding evidence was impacted by external circumstances.
Our scope of review in Title 30 guardianship cases is limited. The trial
court's findings in such cases generally should be upheld so long as they are
supported by "adequate, substantial, and credible evidence." N.J. Div. of Youth
& Fam. Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). The court's decision should
be reversed or altered on appeal only if its findings were "so wholly
unsupportable as to result in a denial of justice." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam.
Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494, 511 (2004) (quoting In re Guardianship of J.N.H.,
172 N.J. 440, 472 (2002)). We must give substantial deference to the trial
judge's opportunity to have observed the witnesses first-hand and to evaluate
A-3226-20
8
their credibility. R.G., 217 N.J. at 552. We must also recognize the expertise
of the Family Part in matters involving the alleged abuse or neglect of children.
See, e.g., N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012);
N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. L.J.D., 428 N.J. Super. 451, 476 (App. Div.
2012).
Applying these principles to the evidence in this case, we reject Bill's
arguments to set aside the final judgment of guardianship. All four prongs of
the statutory criteria are abundantly supported by the record, and the trial judge's
decision comports in all respects with the law.
We therefore affirm the termination of appellant's parental rights
substantially for the sound reasons detailed in Judge Hertzberg's oral opinion.
No further discussion of the judge's wise analysis is necessary. R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3226-20
9