RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2887-16T4

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

ADOPTION OF A CHILD BY 

J.E.V. and D.G.V.

_________________________

Argued September 13, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Koblitz and Ostrer.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket 

No. FA-07-0115-14.

Daniel J. Parziale argued the cause for appellant L.A. 

(Rutgers Law Associates, attorneys; Daniel J. Parziale, 

on the brief).

Matheu D. Nunn argued the cause for respondents 

J.E.V. and D.G.V. (Einhorn, Harris, Ascher, Barbarito 

& Frost, PC, attorneys; Matheu D. Nunn, of counsel and 

on the brief).

Francesca S. Blanco argued the cause for minor H.A.

PER CURIAM

L.A., the biological mother, appeals from the January 20, 2017 order 

granting petitioners' adoption application after a six-day trial. The trial was held 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 26, 2018
2

A-2887-16T4

after a reversal and remand from our Supreme Court, which determined that an 

indigent parent is entitled to counsel at a contested adoption hearing. 

In re Adoption of a Child by J.E.V., 226 N.J. 90, 94 (2016). L.A. argues that 

her poverty prevented her from participating in the trial and the trial court failed 

to adequately take into account her extreme financial hardship when evaluating 

the best interest of the child. We now affirm, substantially for the reasons 

expressed by Presiding Family Judge David B. Katz in his forty-six page written 

opinion.

The child has resided with petitioners since April 2012, when she was two 

years old. Petitioners filed a verified petition for adoption in July 2013. After 

the remand following a trial at which L.A. was not afforded counsel, Judge Katz 

appointed counsel and ordered therapeutic visitation. L.A. appeared one time in 

court when visitation was discussed. She then moved to Arkansas, did not 

participate in any visitation, nor respond to discovery demands, nor participate

with evaluations by her own or plaintiffs' experts, nor appear in person or by 

telephone in any pre-trial conferences or the trial itself.1 With the exception of 

gifts on her third birthday, L.A. has provided no financial support for her 

 

1 After appointing counsel, Judge Katz, who was not the initial trial judge, gave 

L.A. the opportunity to appear by telephone at all proceedings. 
3

A-2887-16T4

daughter, nor made any effort to contact the child by mail or any other way since 

the adoption was reversed and the matter remanded for trial.

Expert testimony established that the child has bonded with petitioners, 

who have made extraordinary efforts to provide her with services to address her 

special needs. The expert opined that separation of the child from petitioners 

and their daughter would cause severe and enduring harm. The appointed 

attorney for the child urges us to affirm. Contrary to L.A.'s arguments on appeal, 

Judge Katz's decision that petitioners established by clear and convincing 

evidence that adoption is in the best interest of the child, N.J.S.A. 9:3-46, is 

well-supported by the record. The extent of L.A.'s poverty was not 

demonstrated, as she failed to participate in discovery. Her voluntary decision 

to move a distance away is not grounds to deprive her child of permanency.

Affirmed.