DCPP VS. K.R., AND BIOLOGICAL FATHER of Z.R., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Z.R. (FG-07-0044-20, ESSEX 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0585-20
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
K.R.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
BIOLOGICAL FATHER of
Z.R., whomever he may be,
Defendant.
__________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF Z.R.,
a minor.
__________________________
Argued September 14, 2021 – Decided October 1, 2021
Before Judges Fisher, Currier, and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
No. FG-07-0044-20.
Ryan T. Clark, Designated Counsel, argued the cause
for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender,
attorney; Ryan T. Clark, on the briefs).
Wesley Hanna, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting
Attorney General, attorney; Jane C. Schuster, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Wesley Hanna, on the
brief).
Louise M. Cho, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,
argued the cause for minor (Joseph E. Krakora, Public
Defender, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel; Louise M. Cho, of counsel
and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant K.R.1 appeals from the October 14, 2020 order of the Family
Part terminating her parental rights to her son Z.R. After a trial, Judge Nora J.
Grimbergen issued a twenty-six-page written opinion finding that plaintiff
Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) satisfied the four prongs
of the best-interests-of-the-child test set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a),
justifying termination of K.R.'s parental rights. We affirm.
1
We identify defendant and other parties by initials to protect confidential
information in the record. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
A-0585-20
2
I.
Judge Grimbergen's opinion reviewed the evidence in great detail. A
summary of her findings of fact will suffice here. DCPP first became involved
with K.R. in 2017 when she was admitted to a hospital with suicidal ideation.
At that time, K.R. had custody of her infant daughter, who she conceded having
pricked in the foot because she would not stop crying. K.R. was diagnosed with
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. She
admitted hearing voices commanding her to harm herself and she was not
compliant with her prescribed medications. DCPP substantiated the physical
harm K.R. caused her daughter and that K.R.'s mental illness threatened the
child's well-being.
K.R. ultimately agreed to live with her daughter in the home of an adult
who would supervise her interaction with the child. She subsequently left that
home and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after she was found wandering
around the neighborhood. The status of K.R.'s daughter is not before the court.
K.R. gave birth to Z.R. in 2018. DCPP received a referral expressing
concern that K.R. would be unable to care for Z.R. When interviewed at the
hospital, K.R. acknowledged her mental illness and noncompliance with
A-0585-20
3
medication. K.R. stated that she rented a room with only a couch and that she
had no provisions for the child.
DCPP executed an emergency removal of Z.R. and placed the child in a
non-relative resource home. In addition, the agency filed a complaint in the
Family Part seeking the care and custody of Z.R. 2
DCPP provided K.R. with liberal visitation rights with Z.R. She did not,
however, make a consistent effort to visit the child. Although K.R. was
unemployed, she stated that she missed visits with her son because she had to
"take care of business." DCPP gave K.R. a bus pass to travel to visits with her
son. K.R. admitted that she gave the pass to someone with whom she lived,
depriving herself of transportation to scheduled visits.
K.R. relocated a number of times, staying in the homes of various friends
or men with whom she was romantically involved. She did not obtain her own
residence or arrange for suitable shelter for her and Z.R. She did not develop a
realistic plan for reunification with her child. K.R. has never worked and her
only income is social security benefits. She has, however, assigned those
benefits to various people over the years, including to the relative of a boyfriend.
2
K.R. did not identify Z.R.'s father. Although the unknown father was named
as a defendant, he did not participate at trial or on appeal.
A-0585-20
4
In addition, K.R. admitted that she did not take her prescribed psychiatric
medications or attend therapy. She stated that she did not feel she needed
medication because she "has a TV and phone to block the voices in [her] head."
Although DCPP offered K.R. services, the record contains no evidence of
her having successfully completed any program. She was terminated from
therapy for noncompliance. She did not attend one-on-one parenting skills
classes because, she stated, she did not want to be bothered. Her inconsistent
attendance resulted in her termination from that program as well. On occasion,
K.R. has said that she did not attend services because she was shopping or
getting her hair done.
Z.R. underwent an early intervention assessment and was referred for
physical and occupational therapy. He was prescribed a helmet to address the
shape of his head. A second evaluation resulted in a referral for speech and
motor skills therapy. He suffers from extreme tantrums, excessive crying, and
an inability to get along with children his age or younger. DCPP has placed
Z.R. in four resource homes, as some of his caregivers have been overwhelmed
by the special attention he requires. Several placement options suggested by
K.R. were investigated by DCPP. In each instance, either the person suggested
A-0585-20
5
by K.R. as a resource parent rejected that proposal or DCPP found the placement
to be inappropriate.
DCPP's plan is to arrange for Z.R.'s adoption. A DCPP employee testified
at trial that the agency has had success in securing the adoption of children with
needs similar to those of Z.R., but that placement options are limited before the
child is free for adoption.
At trial, DCPP called an expert in psychology as it relates to bonding and
parental fitness. He evaluated K.R. on more than one occasion and observed her
visit with Z.R. The expert opined that K.R. has limitations managing her life,
including an inability to deal with money, and that her prognosis for independent
parenting is poor. He testified that when he asked K.R. how she would stop a
child from crying, she responded "he would eat water." The expert found this
answer significant because it was given after K.R. had been offered parenting
skills classes. The expert testified that K.R. was not a viable parenting option
now or in the foreseeable future. He opined that given K.R.'s thought and
affective disorders, which are likely to manifest during times of increased stress,
such as when taking care of a child, placing Z.R. with K.R. would create an
unacceptable risk of harm to the child.
A-0585-20
6
The expert also opined that Z.R. had not developed a bond with K.R.
because he does not view her as a consistent, healthy, and responsive parental
figure. Instead, he opined, Z.R. views K.R. as a source of anxiety, based, in
part, on the expert's observation of what he described as the child's twenty
minutes of hysterical crying during a visit with K.R. The expert testified that
K.R. had to be instructed on how to soothe a child and that her efforts to do so
failed. He testified that each time the child looked at K.R. he cried. He opined
that Z.R. would not experience any in-depth negative effect or enduring harm if
K.R.'s parental rights were terminated. K.R. did not present expert testimony or
any witnesses.
The trial court issued detailed findings with respect to each of the statutory
prongs in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The court found that: (1) K.R.'s parental
relationship with Z.R. endangers the child's safety, health, or development
because of K.R.'s untreated mental illness, cognitive limitations, and failure to
create a realistic plan to house the child and provide for his care; (2) Z.R.'s
behavioral issues heighten the risk of harm were he to be in K.R.'s care; (3) K.R.
is unwilling or unable to address the risk of harm her parental relationship
presents to Z.R., despite the reasonable efforts of DCPP to offer K.R. services
related to the causes of that risk of harm; (4) the delay in permanent placement
A-0585-20
7
will add to the harm Z.R. faces; and (5) termination of K.R.'s parental rights will
not do more harm than good.
This appeal followed. K.R. argues that the trial court's findings of fact
were incomplete or inadequate and that the court failed to consider the impact
Covid-19 restrictions had on the services offered to K.R. The law guardian
representing Z.R. supports the trial court's decision.
II.
Our review of Judge Grimbergen's decision is limited and deferential. We
will not disturb a trial judge's factual findings so long as they are supported by
"adequate, substantial, and credible evidence." See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family
Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). We defer to the judge's evaluation of
witness credibility and to her expertise in family court matters. Ibid.After carefully reviewing the record in light of the applicable precedents,
we conclude that substantial credible evidence supports Judge Grimbergen's
findings of fact and that her conclusions of law are sound. There is no basis for
us to disturb her well-reasoned determination that DCPP established by clear
and convincing evidence that termination of K.R.'s parental rights to Z.R. was
warranted. The judge found credible both the factual testimony of the DCPP
employee witnesses who explained DCPP's interactions with K.R. and the expert
A-0585-20
8
who opined that K.R. was incapable of parenting Z.R. and that her parental rights
could be terminated without enduring harm to the child. K.R. offers no
convincing argument that the trial court erred in its credibility determinations.
We have also considered K.R.'s argument regarding the temporary
interruption of in-person services during the Covid-19 health crisis and find
them unpersuasive. The crux of the trial court's decision is that K.R. suffers
from untreated mental illness, cognitive limitations, and an inability or
unwillingness to address those issues, which render her unable to care for a child
with challenging behavioral issues of his own. There is nothing in the record
suggesting that the trial court relied on a finding that K.R. failed to attend in -
person visitation or services that were, in fact, not available because of the
restrictions associated with the State's health emergency.
We therefore affirm the October 14, 2020 order substantially for the
reasons stated in Judge Grimbergen's comprehensive written opinion. K.R.'s
additional arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion
in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0585-20
9