DCPP VS. P.K.S. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF B.A.N.M. AND M.J.L.M. (FG-08-0021-17, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0293-17T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
P.K.S.,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF B.A.N.M. and M.J.L.M.,
Minors.
____________________________________
Submitted May 30, 2018 – Decided July 10, 2018
Before Judges Fisher and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester
County, Docket No. FG-08-0021-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Lauren M. Derasmo, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Amy Melissa
Young, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for minors (Charles Ouslander, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from a Family Part order terminating her
parental rights to her then almost three-year old son B.A.N.M
(Barry),1 and her then one-and-a-half-year old son M.J.L.M.
(Mike).2 The Law Guardian supports termination and urges us to
uphold the order. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated
by Judge Timothy W. Chell in his thorough twenty-five page written
decision issued with the order.
The pertinent trial evidence is detailed in the judge's
decision. A summary will suffice here. The judge found that both
of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency's (Division)
witnesses, the caseworker and its expert in clinical and forensic
psychology, Dr. James L. Loving, Psy. D., gave credible testimony
that established defendant's lack of parental ability endangered
her "children's safety, health, and development," causing them
"real and substantial harm." Defendant did not present any
1
We use pseudonyms to protect the identities of the parties
involved.
2
The children's biological fathers are unknown.
2 A-0293-17T2
witnesses. In fact, she showed little interest in the proceedings;
failing to attend the trial, and attending only one of the five
pre-trial hearings.
When Barry was about two-and-a-half years old and living with
defendant, their house – to put it mildly – was in a deplorable
condition; rotting groceries in the driveway surrounded by flies
and maggots; dog feces inside the house; urine stains throughout
the house; a dirty kitchen with an inoperable refrigerator; and
graffiti on the walls and doors. This discovery, along with a
doctor's examination of Barry that revealed several abrasions and
a bald spot on his head suggesting he was laying on his back for
extensive periods, led to an Abuse and Neglect proceeding. That
litigation, in which defendant stipulated she abused or neglected
Barry because her home was unsafe, culminated in an order awarding
the Division custody, care, and supervision of Barry. Seven months
earlier, the Division was granted custody, care, and supervision
of Mike – a week after his birth and before he left the hospital.
With her sons placed with resource parents, defendant was
offered services to assist her with the Division's plan for
reunification. However, the plan was transformed to termination
when defendant was dismissed from three visitation programs
offered by the Division due to her inconsistent participation;
failure to obtain suitable housing; failure to provide an
3 A-0293-17T2
acceptable family member to serve as kinship legal guardian; and
failure to demonstrate no ability to properly parent her sons.
Dr. Loving opined that, based upon his bonding evaluations
of the boys with the resource parents, they have a sense of safety,
security and trust with the resource parents, such that if they
were removed from them, it would place them at a high risk for
serious and lasting harm that defendant would be unable to resolve.
No bonding evaluation was conducted between defendant and the boys
because she failed to attend the evaluation.
Based upon the evidence presented, Judge Chell issued a
written decision analyzing how the Division satisfied the four
prongs of the best-interests-of-the-child standard, N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.1(a), and entered an order terminating defendant's
parental rights to her sons. Defendant contends the judge erred
because there was insufficient, credible evidence supporting the
order.
We disagree. Our review of the Judge Chell's comprehensive
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, 269 (2007) (citing In The Matter of
Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)).
4 A-0293-17T2
After reviewing the record, we conclude that defendant's arguments
are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), because the judge's factual findings
are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts,
his legal conclusions are unassailable.
Affirmed.
5 A-0293-17T2