DCPP VS. S.E. AND C.H., IN THE KINSHIP MATTER OF J.E. (FL-05-0012-18, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2020 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4072-18T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
S.E.,1
Defendant-Appellant,
and
C.H.,
Defendant.
_____________________________
IN THE KINSHIP MATTER OF
J.E., a minor,
Respondent.
______________________________
Submitted October 19, 2020 – Decided October 30, 2020
1
To protect the parties' privacy rights, we use initials. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Cape May County,
Docket No. FL-05-0012-18.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public Defender,
of counsel; Victor E. Ramos, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General,
of counsel; Cynthia Phillips, Deputy Attorney General,
on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant S.E. appeals from a February 25, 2019 order, which established
kinship legal guardianship as the best permanency plan for defendant's sixteen-
year old daughter, J.E. We find no merit to defendant's arguments and affirm
substantially for the thorough and detailed reasons expressed in Judge Julio L.
Mendez's January 22, 2019 oral decision on the record and his February 7, 2019
written memorandum of decision.
This action commenced in 2015 when J.E. was removed from defendant's
care and custody by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division)
A-4072-18T1
2
for a fourth time since J.E. was born. After an evidentiary hearing held over the
course of two non-consecutive days, Judge Mendez approved the Division's plan
of kinship legal guardianship with the child's paternal grandparents, finding it
was not in the J.E.'s best interests to be reunified with defendant.
The Division's case worker testified defendant's chronic substance abuse,
domestic violence history, mental health issues, employment instability, and
lack of stable housing prevented reunification with J.E. According to the case
worker, the Division referred defendant to various services to address these
issues, including psychological evaluations, substance abuse evaluations and
treatment, domestic violence counseling, supervised visitation, parenting
classes, and drug testing. Defendant's compliance with the Division's efforts
was sometimes successful, but her participation was sporadic, and she failed to
engage in many of the offered services.
Three separate psychological professionals evaluated defendant, and each
concluded J.E.'s best interest would not be served by reunification. Bonding
evaluations conducted between J.E. and her paternal grandparents found there
was a strong parental bond, and J.E. would be significantly harmed by severing
that relationship. On the other hand, the bonding evaluations between defendant
A-4072-18T1
3
and J.E. concluded the child would suffer no severe and enduring harm if that
relationship was ended.
The judge found the Division's expert, Dr. Alan Lee, Psy.D, credible based
on his candid responses to questioning during the trial. He further determined
Dr. Lee was believable because his testimony was consistent with the
documentary evidence. Judge Mendez also interviewed J.E. in camera and
concluded J.E. "felt like she was in the middle of this litigation," and was "very
cautious not to say anything hurtful during the interview" about her mother or
paternal grandparents. In evaluating defendant's testimony, Judge Mendez
determined defendant was not credible "due to the lack of consistency in her
testimony and her inability to sufficiently support any of the statements she
made while testifying."
Judge Mendez found all four prongs of the kinship legal guardianship
statute, N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6(d), were satisfied and awarded custody of J.E. to the
paternal grandparents.2 In accordance with the second prong, based on the
expert evidence, the judge concluded defendant's ability to change in the
2
In awarding kinship legal guardianship, the judge determined adoption of J.E.
was not feasible or likely. He also considered J.E.'s expressed interest in
maintaining a relationship with defendant.
A-4072-18T1
4
foreseeable future was unlikely. N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6(d)(2).3 In analyzing the
third prong, Judge Mendez determined the Division exercised reasonable efforts
on multiple occasions to reunify J.E. and defendant by providing "vast amounts
of supportive services to try to correct the circumstances with led to [J.E.] being
removed from [defendant's] custody" but those efforts were unsuccessful.
N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6(d)(3). In assessing the fourth prong, Judge Mendez found
kinship legal guardianship was in J.E.'s best interests because defendant lacked
the ability to parent the child at the time of the trial and into the foreseeable
future and the child was in the care of her loving and supportive paternal
grandparents who were unwilling to adopt her. N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6(d)(4).
Judge Mendez entered a kinship legal guardianship order on February 25,
2019, which allowed defendant visitation with J.E. one weekday night from 2:30
p.m. until 6:00 p.m., or as otherwise agreed upon by defendant, J.E., and the
paternal grandparents. The judge noted that the order remains in effect until the
child reaches the age of eighteen or when the child is no longer continuously
enrolled in high school, whichever event occurs later.
3
On appeal, defendant did not challenge the judge's findings under the first
prong of the kinship legal guardianship statute. N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6(d)(1).
A-4072-18T1
5
On appeal, defendant contends the evidence did not support the second,
third, and fourth prongs of the statute. We disagree.
Defendant did not offer any evidence that reunification with J.E. was in
the child's best interests. She failed to do so based on the uncontroverted
evidence adduced at the trial. 4 Judge Mendez's detailed findings and credibility
determinations are entitled to deference because they are based on substantial
credible evidence stemming from the judge's ability to see and hear the
witnesses. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552
(2014); Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412-13 (1998).
We are satisfied that Judge Mendez's decision, awarding kinship legal
guardianship of J.E. to the paternal grandparents, is amply supported on this
record, which included meticulous and comprehensive reports and opinions
offered by the Division's experts. The experts noted the child bonded with her
paternal grandparents for the five years she has been in their care and was
excelling in school. In addition, the Division provided resources to defendant
in an effort to reunify mother and daughter but, sadly, defendant was
unsuccessful in achieving the skills necessary to care for her child.
Affirmed.
4
While defendant testified at trial, she failed to proffer any countervailing
expert testimony.
A-4072-18T1
6