DCPP VS. F.S. AND R.G., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.R.G., JR., L.M.G., AND Z.J.G. (FG-07-0200-17, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2037-17T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
F.S.,
Defendant,
and
R.G.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF A.R.G.,
JR., L.M.G., and Z.J.G.,
Minors.
_____________________________
Submitted January 10, 2019 – Decided March 13, 2019
Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
No. FG-07-0200-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Janet A. Allegro, Designated Counsel, on the
brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Travis A. Provost, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minors (Meredith A. Pollock, Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel; Phyllis G. Warren,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, R.G. (father) appeals from a December 19, 2017 order of
guardianship terminating his parental rights to his three children: A.R.G., Jr.
(Adam), L.M.G. (Lindsey), and Z.J.G. (Zahir).1 We affirm substantially for the
reasons set forth in Judge James R. Paganelli's comprehensive and well-
reasoned fifty-two page written decision issued with the judgment.
1
We use pseudonyms for the names of the children for ease of reference and to
protect the family's identity.
A-2037-17T1
2
The evidence is set forth in detail in the judge's decision. We summarize
the key evidence. F.S.2 (mother) and father are the parents of eight year-old
Adam, seven year-old Lindsey, and four year-old Zahir. Though never married,
mother and father were together when the Division of Child Protection and
Permanency (Division) became involved in 2015 after father was arrested for
simple assault involving mother and her brother. Mother suffered from
delusions and psychosis and was using drugs. At the time of the alleged assault
she was ostensibly in that state, alleging her brother and the building
superintendent were raping her children. Father reported he believed mother's
and the children's accusations, prompting his aggressive conduct. The Division
permitted the maternal grandmother to take the three children home but later
transferred them to a resource home. Findings of neglect were established
against the parents as "established."
Father agreed to begin a twenty-six week domestic violence counseling
program but was terminated from the program twice before he completed it, and
resisted other services ordered by the court, including substance abuse
evaluations. He never secured safe and appropriate housing. He was
2
Mother has not joined in this appeal.
A-2037-17T1
3
inconsistent with visits and did not demonstrate any understanding of mother's
mental illness and its impact on the children.
Mental health professionals evaluated both father and mother. Mother
was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, unspecified psychotic
disorder, and possible bi-polar disorder. On September 22, 2015, Dr. Eric
Kirschner evaluated father for psychological functioning, parenting ability, and
treatment needs. According to Dr. Kirschner, father minimized incidents of
domestic violence as well as mother's symptoms of mental illness. Dr. Kirschner
opined father had minimal depressive symptoms but had compulsive and
histrionic traits; however, he had "appropriate attitudes and beliefs in regards to
expectations, empathy, alternatives to corporal punishment, family roles and
power-independence." Dr. Kirschner recommended father complete the
domestic violence program, be referred for psychiatric evaluation, and maintain
stable housing and adequate financial resources.
On February 12, 2016, psychiatrist Dr. Samiris Sostre evaluated father
and found him guarded in his responses. Dr. Sostre did not diagnose a major
depressive or anxiety disorder but noted father's impaired impulse control. Dr.
A-2037-17T1
4
Sostre recommended father participate in mother's psychiatric visits so he would
learn how mental illness, if untreated, affects the children.3
On April 18, 2017, the Division filed a complaint for guardianship of all
three children. Dr. Kirschner conducted bonding evaluations with the resource
parent and the three children, as well as with father and the three children. Dr.
Kirschner noted father lacked adequate housing for his children and, though
crediting his progress, the length of time it was taking him to complete the
domestic violence program negatively affected the children's ability to achieve
permanency. Dr. Kirschner expressed concern about father's stated aspirations
of reuniting with mother. Dr. Kirschner opined all children were bonded both
with father and the resource parent, and would suffer psychological harm with
the loss of either relationship. However, he opined only the resource parent
would be capable of mitigating the resulting harm.
Although she expressed commitment to adopt Adam, the resource parent
requested he be removed from her home due to behavior problems and because
she was "tired of him." On August 28, 2017, Adam was transferred to a
treatment home, his fourth placement. The resource parent also expressed
3
This did not materialize because mother was not attending psychiatric
treatment.
A-2037-17T1
5
reservations about adopting Zahir. The Division began considering different
adoptive homes for Adam and Zahir through select home adoption, if parental
rights were terminated.
In light of this concerning information, the Division asked Dr. Kirschner
to reexamine his recommendations. Notwithstanding the uncertain path to
adoption, on October 4, 2017, Dr. Kirschner maintained his original
recommendation of termination of parental rights followed by select home
adoption would not do more harm than good because it would provide
permanency.
On August 22, 2017, the Division held a team meeting but neither parent
attended. On September 13, 2017, father completed the domestic violence
program. The Division warned both parents, given their inconsistent attendance,
they would be terminated from the supervised visitation program if they did not
attend or confirm their remaining visits.
The Division told father he needed to secure housing independent of
mother and made several attempts to schedule an assessment of his home; father
never provided a time for such an assessment. When he was later asked about
housing plans, father asserted he wanted to rent a two-bedroom apartment,
claiming his employer had put money aside for this purpose, but mother told the
A-2037-17T1
6
Division father planned to rent a room in her apartment where their children
could live. Though separated, father told the caseworker he wanted it to appear
to the children that they were a unified family.
On November 8, November 15, and December 5, 2017, Judge Paganelli
conducted a guardianship trial. At trial, the caseworker testified the Division
did not expect significant problems locating adoptive homes for Adam and Zahir
through select home adoption. Dr. Kirschner testified and opined termination
would best provide the children permanency. He expressed concern about
father's lack of insight into the risk posed by mother's mental illness. Dr.
Kirschner expressed concern that father did not appear cognizant of his
independent obligation to keep his children safe in light of mother's mental
illness. Father called no witnesses and did not testify.
On December 19, 2017, Judge Paganelli issued a decision terminating the
parental rights of father and mother, issued a judgment of guardianship and
ordered monthly supervised visitation. In his decision, the judge noted father
never secured stable housing, was uncooperative and evasive when the Division
tried to assess the suitability of his residence, and never submitted to a substance
abuse evaluation despite having been ordered to do so throughout the litigation.
Of paramount significance was the judge's determination father had no insight
A-2037-17T1
7
into the seriousness of mother's mental illness and the risk she posed to the
children as evidenced by father's statements and his attempt to pay for a room
in the mother's apartment where mother was living so the father and children
could live.
Judge Paganelli reviewed the evidence presented at the trial, made factual
findings as to each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and thereafter concluded
the Division met by clear and convincing evidence all of the legal requirements
for a judgment of guardianship as to the father. The judge's opinion tracks the
statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), accords with N.J. Div. of
Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420 (2012), N.J. Div. of Youth &
Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88 (2008), In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161
N.J. 337 (1999), In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365 (1999), and N.J.
Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591 (1986), and is amply
supported by the record. F.M., 211 N.J. at 448-49. In addition, we note the
judge gave thoughtful attention to the importance of permanency and stability
from the perspective of each of the children's individual needs and
circumstances. We affirm substantially for the reasons Judge Paganelli
expressed in his cogent written opinion.
Affirmed.
A-2037-17T1
8