DCPP VS. C.S.R. AND C.C. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.B.R. AND S.D.R.(FG-07-231-15, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 only binding 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-3143-15T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD
PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
C.S.R.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
C.C.,
Defendant.
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP
OF S.B.R. AND S.D.R., minors.
Submitted April 25, 2017 — Decided May 12, 2017
Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex
County, Docket No. FG-07-231-15.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Dorian Smith, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Julie
B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian, attorney for minors (Caitlin
McLaughlin, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant C.S.R. appeals from a Family Part order dated March
18, 2016, terminating his parental rights to his two children,
"Sarah" and "Suzy,"1 who are now eight and four years old. The
children's mother, C.C. has surrendered her parental rights. 2
Because the permanent placement has been disrupted and the children
moved, and because the expert found the initial prospective
relative adoptive parents could mitigate any harm caused by the
termination of defendant's rights, we remand for a further hearing.
We affirm the remainder of the court's decision substantially for
the reasons stated by the judge in her eighty-six-page written
opinion issued on March 22, 2016.
The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's opinion.
A summary will suffice here. Sarah was first removed from her
1 We use pseudonyms and initials to refer to the parties pursuant
to Rule 1:38-3(d)(12).
2She first gave an identified surrender to the paternal relatives
and later to the current caretakers.
2 A-3143-15T1
home in 2009, when she was only a few weeks old. She tested
positive for methadone and went through opiate withdrawal at birth.
In February 2013, Suzy was born and also tested positive for
methadone at birth. The two girls were reunified with their mother
at a "Mommy and Me" program for short periods of time, but the
mother continued to use drugs. Both children were also placed
with defendant's brother and sister-in-law more than once, and
that is where they resided at the time of the guardianship trial.
Defendant, who is now forty-seven years old, reported having
as many as fifteen other children, although he could not supply
the last name of one of the children. He was at times hard to
locate. From April to June 2012 neither parent could be located.
In March 2013, defendant, C.C. and the children lived together at
a YMCA shelter, but in April 2014 the children were again removed,
because defendant was homeless and unemployed.
After the children were removed, defendant missed several
appointments with the Division. He was arrested and incarcerated
for ten days. In December 2014, the girls were again placed with
the paternal relatives. Defendant missed many visits at "Reunity
House" and behaved inappropriately at others. In April 2015
defendant was again arrested and incarcerated. Eventually he
began supervised visits with the children at the home of his
brother and sister-in-law.
3 A-3143-15T1
Defendant was evaluated by Dr. Peter DeNigris. Dr. DeNigris
opined that defendant was "not fit" to parent the children because
he was unwilling to acknowledge any responsibility in the issues
surrounding his children and unwilling to change in any way.
According to Dr. DeNigris, defendant lacked knowledge of child
development and was unwilling to learn.
Dr. DeNigris said the girls were in desperate need of
permanency, especially Sarah, who had endured the most placement
changes. He opined that the paternal caretakers were:
truly the only consistent caretakers who these
children know. They are familiar with their
needs and are committed to addressing them on
a permanent basis. As such, termination of
[defendant's] parental rights will not do more
harm than good. The children will not
experience severe and enduring harm if ties
to their biological father are severed. If
they experience any feelings of grief or loss,
their reactions could be mitigated by
sensitive and nurturing caregivers, such as
[the paternal relatives]. Pursuing
termination of parental rights will allow
these children to remain in an environment
that is guided by nurturance, consistency,
stability, and appropriate parenting.
Dr. DeNigris said Sarah had a "healthy bond" with the paternal
relatives and a healthy bond "is forming" with Suzy.
Defendant's difficulty maintaining employment, homelessness,
substance abuse and involvement with the criminal justice system
as well as his psychological unfitness all impaired his ability
to safely parent his two daughters. The Division offered numerous
4 A-3143-15T1
services to him over an extended period of time, including drug
treatment, supervised visits, bus passes, and assistance in
locating housing. Defendant participated in some services, but
failed to follow-up with substance abuse aftercare, frequently
missed visits and did not engage appropriately with his children
at supervised visits. Defendant did not testify at the
guardianship trial, and at the end of the trial, prior to the
judge's decision, he volunteered to surrender his parental rights
to his brother and sister-in-law, in part because he had heard
that the placement was precarious. The Division did not accept
the surrender. See N.J.S.A. 9:3-41; N.J.S.A. 30:4C-23.
In her comprehensive opinion, the trial judge found that the
Division had 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 children's best interests. The judge
found as to prong four, "that the children have developed a strong
attachment with their aunt and uncle due to the length of
placement, their ages at the time of placement, and the love and
consistency they provide to the children." She found, therefore,
that the children "will not suffer more harm than good if the
rights of [defendant] are terminated."
On this appeal, our review of the trial judge's decision is
limited. We defer to her expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare
5 A-3143-15T1
v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998), and we are bound by her
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 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 its findings
on the first three prongs, claiming he only had two drug tests
that were positive for cocaine and he completed one drug program.
Defendant also asserts that he was unable to create a stable home
for his children due to poverty, and not his poor parenting skills.
Those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion
in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Our concern is that after the guardianship trial, the
anticipated adoption of the girls by the paternal relatives did
not come to fruition. The girls had to be removed on July 15,
2016, and have been placed in a non-relative resource home where
the possibility of adoption exists once again. The judge found
that any harm to the children caused by the termination of
defendant's parental rights could be mitigated by the paternal
relatives, due to their long-standing loving relationship with the
6 A-3143-15T1
children. Because of the disruption in that relationship, we are
constrained to remand for a further hearing limited to prong four
of the best interests test: "Termination of parental rights will
not do more harm than good." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4).
Remanded for a further best-interests hearing in light of
recent developments. We do not retain jurisdiction.
7 A-3143-15T1