RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-3960-16T1

 A-3961-16T1

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

K.F. and T.F.,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF W.F. and E.F.,

Minors.

______________________________________

Submitted September 27, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Simonelli and O'Connor. 

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket 

No. FG-15-0050-15.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 26, 2018
2

A-3960-16T1

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant K.F. (Albert M. Afonso, Designated Counsel, 

on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant T.F. (Christine Olexa Saginor, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Salima E. Burke, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minors (Michele C. Scenna, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM 

Defendants K.F. (Karen),1the biological mother, and T.F. (Thomas), the 

biological father, of E.F. (Elizabeth), born in 2011, and W.F. (Wyatt), born in 

2012, appeal from the May 3, 2017 judgment of guardianship terminating their 

parental rights to the children. On appeal, Karen contends the trial judge failed 

to apply the prevailing legal standard when he terminated the parental rights of 

a parent the judge found to be fit, and erred in finding respondent New Jersey 

Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) proved prongs three 

 

1

 We use fictitious names to identify defendants and the children. R. 1:38-

3(d)(12). We shall sometimes collectively refer to Karen and Thomas as 

defendants. 
3

A-3960-16T1

and four of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. Thomas 

contends the judge erred in finding the Division proved all four statutory prongs 

by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm as to both defendants.

We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with 

the family. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings set forth in 

Judge Robert A. Fall's comprehensive written opinion, dated May 3, 2017. We 

add the following comments.

Defendants have eight other children who are not involved in this appeal, 

Ty.F., born in 1997; M.F.,2 born in 1999; Je.F., born in 2001; A.F., born in 

2002; Ja.F., born in 2004; Em.F., born in 2005; C.F., born in 2007; and N.F., 

born in 2009. The family was involved with the Department of Children and 

Families of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from 2005 to 2012. They 

moved to New Jersey in March 2012, and became involved with the Division in 

June 2012. 

In December 2012, the Division instituted a Title 9 action based on its 

concerns about defendants' ability to care for the children, and because of 

 

2

 Ty.F was nineteen years old and M.F. was eighteen when the trial commenced 

in December 2016. 
4

A-3960-16T1

Thomas's mental health issues and prior suicide attempt and Karen's use of 

medications or other substances. 

In January 2013, the court ordered a Dodd removal 3 of all ten children. 

The Division provided an array of services to the family thereafter, including 

psychiatric, psychological, and substance abuse evaluations. In September 

2013, defendants were reunited with Ty.F., M.F., Je.F., and A.F., with a goal of 

reunification with the six other children. The Division continued providing 

services to the family; however, there were concerns about defendants' ability 

to care for the four children. In November 2013, Elizabeth and Wyatt were 

placed in a resource home, where they remained.

The matter proceeded to a guardianship action. In February 2016, Ja.F. 

and Em.F. were reunified with defendants, leaving C.F., N.F., Elizabeth and 

Wyatt subject to the guardianship proceeding. Following a guardianship trial, 

Judge Fall dismissed the guardianship complaint as to C.F. and N.F., and ordered 

the Division to develop a reunification plan for their return to defendants. The 

 

3

 "A 'Dodd removal' refers to the emergency removal of a child from the home 

without a court order pursuant to the Dodd Act, which, as amended, is found at 

N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.82. The Act was authored by former Senate President 

Frank J. 'Pat' Dodd in 1974." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. N.S., 412 

N.J. Super. 593, 60i n.2 (App. Div. 2010).
5

A-3960-16T1

judge entered judgment terminating defendants' parental rights to Elizabeth and 

Wyatt. 

Judge Fall reviewed the evidence presented at the trial, made meticulous 

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 both defendants. 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 supported by the record. F.M., 211 N.J. at 448-49. We affirm 

substantially for the reasons Judge Fall expressed in his cogent written opinion. 

However, we make the following brief comments.

Although defendants may be capable of serving as safe and suitable 

caretakers for their older children, the record amply supports Judge Fall's 

conclusion that termination is in the best interests of Elizabeth and Wyatt. The 

judge carefully distinguished the circumstances of Elizabeth and Wyatt from 
6

A-3960-16T1

C.F. and N.F., and observed that even defendants' experts did not endorse 

reunification.

Affirmed.