DCPP VS. M.M. AND E.J.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF MI.M., P.J., V.M.AND G.M.(FG-20-0011-16, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED) ( 2017 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4985-15T2
A-4986-15T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
M.M. and E.J.,
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF
MI.M., P.J., V.M., and G.M., minors.
_____________________________________
Submitted May 9, 2017 – Decided June 9, 2017
Before Judges Reisner, Rothstadt and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County,
Docket No. FG-20-0011-16.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant M.M. (Carol A. Weil, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant E.J. (Beryl Foster-Andres,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen
L. Buckwalter, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian for minors MI.M., V.M., and P.R.G.
(Nancy P. Fratz, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian for minor respondent G.M. (Danielle
Ruiz, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated matters, defendants M.M. (Marilyn) and
E.J. (Evan)1 appeal from a June 30, 2016 Family Part guardianship
judgment and order terminating their parental rights to their
children. They argue that they did not intentionally harm their
children, the court improperly relied upon referrals that were
unsubstantiated, and plaintiff New Jersey Division of Child
Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to provide them with
sufficient services and interfered with their visitation. They
also contend that the court failed to acknowledge their success
in the services provided, and the evidence did not support a
determination that termination would not do more harm than good.
We disagree and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by
1
We employ pseudonyms for clarity and to protect the parties'
identities.
2 A-4985-15T2
Judge Daniel R. Lindemann in his exhaustive 113 page, single-
spaced written decision issued with the order.
The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's decision.
A summary will suffice here. Mi.M. (Max), born April 23, 2006,
V.M. (Valerie), born April 12, 2007, P.J. (Peter), born November
9, 2008, and G.M. (Geoff), born May 19, 2014, are Marilyn and
Evan's biological children. The Division's first involvement with
the family occurred in 2012, when it received a referral indicating
the children lacked stable housing, did not attend school, and
Valerie, then age five, looked "emaciated." The children were
taken to the hospital where Valerie, who weighed 24.2 pounds, was
diagnosed with "failure to thrive" and transferred to another
hospital for additional testing. Evaluators at the medical
facility determined that Valerie had been deprived of necessary
caloric intake and had been subjected to medical neglect.
During the ensuing Title 9 abuse and neglect action,2 Max and
Peter were placed in one non-relative resource home, while Valerie
was placed in a separate home. The parents initially began to
make slow progress with services aimed at reunification. However,
their progress was delayed by additional allegations of abuse.
The Division received a report based upon statements by the
2
See N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.73.
3 A-4985-15T2
children that alleged Evan watched pornographic movies with the
children in the same room and touched his genitals, and that the
parents engaged in sexual acts while one of their sons was in the
room. One son also alleged that his parents inappropriately
touched him. These allegations led to additional evaluations,
therapies, and services that the family participated in towards
the goal of a family reunification.
While the Title 9 case was pending, Marilyn gave birth to
Geoff, who was also placed with a resource family. A year later,
the court ordered that Geoff's custody be transferred to Marilyn
and that unsupervised weekend visits between Marilyn and the other
children take place with the understanding that Evan would not
have unsupervised contact with the children.
Following the children's second unsupervised overnight visit,
Marilyn fled New Jersey with the children and went to Georgia,
where she met Evan, without first obtaining the Division's or the
court's consent and without informing either of their location.
The Division initiated a search for the parties and their children,
which ended when the State of Georgia's child protective service
agency informed the Division in July 2015 that the family had been
located in that state and that they took the children into custody.
Georgia authorities released the children into the Division's
custody, and the older children were returned to their previous
4 A-4985-15T2
resource homes. The court removed Geoff from Marilyn's custody,
and he too was returned to his former resource home. The parents
were incarcerated in Georgia until they were released to New Jersey
authorities, who arrested and incarcerated them.3
The Division referred the children for sibling visitation and
therapeutic, supervised visits with their parents. However, the
court suspended visitation pending psychological evaluations to
determine the impact visitation would have on the children. The
court also conducted a permanency hearing and found it would not
be safe to return custody to the parents. It approved the
Division's permanency plan of termination of both parents'
parental rights to all of the children and their adoption by their
respective resource parents.
On October 6, 2015, the Division filed a complaint for
guardianship. The court ordered therapy and supervised
visitation, conditioning it upon the older children's desire to
see their parents. The Division arranged for individual therapy
3
Evan was sentenced to three years of probation, after pleading
guilty to interference with custody, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-4(a)(3).
Under the plea agreement, Evan was ordered to follow the
recommendations of the Division and have no contact with the
children except under Division supervision. Marilyn was released
on her own recognizance, with the requirement that she report to
criminal case management every Friday or face arrest and that she
comply with Division regulations already imposed and have no
contact with the children without Division approval.
5 A-4985-15T2
for the older children and another psychological evaluation. The
evaluation consisted of the combined opinion of two psychologists.
They opined that contact with the parents might lead to additional
trauma and disruption to the children's development and that
individual therapy for the children should continue. Subsequent
reports from the children's counselors indicated that the children
were engaged in treatment and were angry at their parents and
excited by the prospect of adoption. Despite the children not
wanting to see their parents, and a court order that Evan was not
to go near them without Division supervision, Marilyn and Evan
attempted to have contact with them, according to reports from
Max's resource parent.
The guardianship trial took place over the course of eight
days in June 2016 before Judge Lindemann.4 The Division presented
testimony from a Division caseworker, Max’s resource parent, and
medical and mental health professionals. The doctors who testified
discussed the initial harm to Valerie and the trauma suffered by
the children as a result of the parents' conduct and their desire
to have no contact with their parents. The experts concluded it
was not safe for the children to be returned to their parents, as
they were incapable of caring for them. One of the psychologists
4
Both parents attended seven days of the trial but then opted
not to attend the remainder of the proceedings.
6 A-4985-15T2
also presented his findings as to a bonding evaluation he conducted
with the children, their parents, and their resource parents. The
Law Guardian presented additional psychological expert testimony,
including the results of another bonding evaluation. Also, Evan
called a medical doctor as a witness regarding Valerie's condition,
attributing her emaciation to medical issues unrelated to the
parents' conduct.
In his comprehensive opinion, Judge Lindemann set forth his
consideration of all of the evidence in detail and found that the
Division had proven by clear and convincing evidence all four
prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and
that termination of defendants' parental rights was in the
children's best interests.
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, 412 (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)). After reviewing the record, we conclude
that Judge Lindemann's factual findings are fully supported by the
record and, in light of those facts, his legal conclusions are
unassailable. We find defendants' arguments to the contrary to
7 A-4985-15T2
be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
8 A-4985-15T2