DCPP VS. R.E.H., JR., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF O.H. (FG-05-0016-16, CAPE MAY 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2575-17T4
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
R.E.H. Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF O.H., a Minor.
______________________________
Submitted October 24, 2018 – Decided November 9, 2018
Before Judges Koblitz, Ostrer and Currier.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Cape May County,
Docket No. FG-05-0016-16.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Steven E. Miklosey, Designated Counsel,
on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Jennifer K. Russo-Belles, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (Melissa R. Vance, Assistant
Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant R.E.H. Jr.,1 appeals from a January 23, 2018 Family Part order
terminating his parental rights to his then-almost-four-year-old daughter O.H.
We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by Presiding Judge Nancy L.
Ridgway in her written opinion issued with the order.
The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's opinion. A summary will
suffice here. The child was born in 2014 to a mother who subsequently executed
an identified surrender 2 to the current resource parents who wish to adopt O.H.
These resource parents have adopted two of O.H.'s siblings after defendants
surrendered their rights to these two children, in an identified surrender to the
1
We use initials to identify the parties to preserve the confidentiality of these
proceedings. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
2
In an "identified surrender," the "person(s) as to whom the surrender is made
shall adopt the children." N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Services v. D.M.B.,
375 N.J. Super. 141, 145 (App. Div. 2005); see N.J.S.A. 9:3-38(j); N.J.S.A.
9:3-41; N.J.S.A. 30:4C-23.
A-2575-17T4
2
resource parents. The resource parents' two biological children also live in the
household.
Defendant is intellectually limited and suffers from psychiatric disorders.
He is a long-time marijuana user and has longstanding housing and work
instability, although he had a job and was living in a mobile home with his
girlfriend at the time of trial. The two older children were not well-supervised
or well-cared-for by defendant. He had only supervised visits with O.H. since
her removal at seven months. O.H. has only a moderate attachment to defendant,
viewing him as a "visiting relative." She has a strong attachment to her resource
parents, with whom she has lived since she was seven months old. Defendant's
paramour, by her own account, has a "learning disability," making her eligible
for Social Security benefits. While defendant works, she is defendant's proposed
caretaker for O.H., who has special needs.
In her comprehensive opinion, the trial judge found that the Division had
clearly and convincingly proven all four prongs of the best interests test,
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and that termination of defendant's parental rights was
in the child's best interests. On this appeal, our review of the trial judge's
decision is limited. We defer to her expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v.
Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998), and we are bound by her factual findings
A-2575-17T4
3
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). After reviewing the record,
we conclude that the trial judge's factual findings are fully supported by the
record and, in light of those facts, her legal conclusions are unassailable.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in not giving sufficient
weight to the insufficiency of the Division's efforts to place O.H. with relatives,
the strength of the bond between defendant and O.H., and defendant's
rehabilitative efforts. In light of Judge Ridgeway's opinion, those arguments are
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2575-17T4
4