DCPP VS. T.T. AND M.M. IN THE MATTER OF M.T.T., B.M. AND J.M. (FN-19-0066-17, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                       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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0527-19
    NEW JERSEY DIVISION
    OF CHILD PROTECTION
    AND PERMANENCY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    T.T.,
    Defendant-Appellant,
    and
    M.M.,
    Defendant.
    ____________________________
    IN THE MATTER OF M.T.T.,
    B.M. and J.M., minors.
    ____________________________
    Submitted February 9, 2021 – Decided February 25, 2021
    Before Judges Fisher and Gummer.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County,
    Docket No. FN-19-0066-17.
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
    appellant (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public Defender,
    of counsel; James D. O'Kelly, Designated Counsel, on
    the brief).
    Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
    respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
    General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, Deputy
    Attorney General, on the brief).
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
    attorney for minors B.M. and J.M. (Meredith Alexis
    Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Linda
    Vele Alexander, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
    attorney for minor M.T.T. (Noel C. Devlin, Assistant
    Deputy Public Defender, joins in the brief of minors-
    respondents B.M. and J.M.).
    PER CURIAM
    Defendant T.T. is the mother of three children:        M.T.T. (Molly), a
    daughter born in 2005, and twin boys, B.M., and J.M., born in 2014. Finding
    their home to be in deplorable condition, in March 2017 the Division of Child
    Protection and Permanency commenced this Title Nine action, seeking the care,
    custody, and supervision of all three children. On April 4, 2017 – the return
    date of an order to show cause entered when the suit was commenced – the court
    ordered the children's removal from their home. Soon after, S.T. – Molly's father
    2                                    A-0527-19
    – and defendant surrendered their parental rights to Molly. Because the twins'
    father, M.M., stipulated the condition of the home warranted the Division's
    intervention and that the twins were in need of services to ensure their health
    and safety, the trial court dismissed this Title Nine action against him.
    A fact-finding hearing – focusing on defendant and her parenting of the
    twins – took place over seven non-consecutive days between February and
    August 2018. The judge heard lay and expert testimony, including Molly's
    testimony, made credibility findings, and determined that at all relevant times
    the home was in a "horrendous, deplorable, unsanitary, and unsafe" condition.
    We need not describe or detail the evidence that resulted in the judge's
    finding about the condition of the home. Our role is limited; we defer to judge-
    made findings when supported by credible evidence in the record because the
    trial judge has had "the opportunity to make first-hand credibility judgments
    about the witnesses . . . [and] has a 'feel of the case' that can never be realized
    by a review of the cold record." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. E.P., 
    196 N.J. 88
    , 104 (2008) (quoting State v. Johnson, 
    42 N.J. 146
    , 161 (1964)).
    After careful review, we are satisfied the evidence fully supports the
    judge's conclusion that the twins were abused or neglected within the meaning
    of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4), which defines an "abused or neglected child" as one
    "whose physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in
    3                                     A-0527-19
    imminent danger of becoming impaired as the result of the failure of [a] parent
    . . . to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying the child with adequate
    food, clothing, shelter . . . ." Indeed, defendant never disputed the claims about
    the condition of the home 1 but instead argued that while she may have neglected
    the home, she had not neglected the children – a theme that fails to appreciate
    that children are entitled to a safe and stable home environment, as our
    Legislature has declared. 
    Ibid.
     The judge determined as well that defendant
    suffered from anxiety and depression and, despite the Division's efforts, she
    declined services to address her mental health issues, choosing instead to
    undergo her own therapy through "the art that she does and the video games that
    she plays on her computer."
    In short, the judge concluded that the children – prior to their removal –
    had been raised in a home that suffered from significant environmental neglect
    and that defendant recklessly disregarded the children's safety.          An order
    memorializing the finding of abuse and neglect was entered in August 2018. A
    year later, the litigation was terminated.
    Defendant appeals, arguing:
    I. THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE
    MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL CONDITIONS OF
    [DEFENDANT'S] CHILDREN WERE IN IMMINENT
    1
    She told her own expert that it was "all [her] fault . . . . [The house is] a mess.
    My kids were taken away. The house is still a mess."
    4                                      A-0527-19
    DANGER OF BEING IMPAIRED BUT FAILED TO
    IDENTIFY   THE  ACTUAL    MENTAL    OR
    EMOTIONAL HARM THAT [DEFENDANT]
    EXPOSED HER CHILDREN TO BY FAILING TO
    MAINTAIN A CLEAN HOME.
    II. THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL CONCLU-
    SIONS WERE WIDE OF THE MARK AND THE
    IMPLICATIONS IT DREW FROM THOSE
    CONCLUSIONS WERE PATENTLY ERRONEOUS.
    III. THE TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT
    [DEFENDANT] SUBJECTED HER CHILDREN TO
    ENVIRONMENTAL NEGLECT SHOULD BE
    REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT
    FAILED TO CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF THE
    SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
    IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY LIMITED
    ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS TO EVENTS
    THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE CHILDREN'S
    REMOVAL ON APRIL 4, 2017.
    We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written
    opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth
    in Judge Michael C. Gaus's thorough and well-reasoned oral decision.
    Affirmed.
    5                                     A-0527-19
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-0527-19

Filed Date: 2/25/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/25/2021