Court Opinion

ID: 9942532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 15:08:17.829024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:11.973641
License: Public Domain

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                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2701-22

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

A.P.,

          Defendant,

and

D.S-R.,

     Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF S.L.P.S.,
a minor.
___________________________

                   Submitted January 23, 2024 – Decided February 21, 2024

                   Before Judges Whipple, Mayer and Enright.
            On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
            Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County,
            Docket No. FG-12-0040-22.

            Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
            appellant (Christine Olexa Saginor, Designated
            Counsel, on the brief).

            Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
            respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney
            General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, Deputy
            Attorney General, on the brief).

            Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
            attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy
            Public Defender, of counsel; Neha Gogate, Assistant
            Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      This is an appeal from the entry of an order of guardianship. Defendant,

D.S.-R., appeals from the trial court's decision of April 18, 2023, terminating

his parental rights to his daughter, S.L.P.S. S.L.P.S.'s mother, A.P., executed

an identified surrender of her parental rights so that S.L.P.S.'s resource parents

could adopt and is not a party to this appeal. A.P. and D.S.-R. have two older

children who are not part of this litigation. We affirm.

      This family first came to the attention of the Division of Child Protection

and Permanency (Division) in 2019, due to allegations D.S.-R. physically

abused his then-two-year-old son. A few months later, the Division became

                                                                            A-2701-22
                                        2
involved with the family again, after S.L.P.S.'s premature birth at home.

S.L.P.S. was placed in the neo-natal intensive care unit due to numerous health

concerns.   Additionally, emergency services alerted the Division the home

appeared unsuitable for children. The Division investigators found it dirty and

cluttered throughout, but after D.S.-R. agreed to clean it prior to S.L.P.S.'s

discharge from the hospital, the home improved. Thus, the Division made

findings of "not established" against D.S.-R. and A.P. for the allegations of

neglect.

      The family's case was reopened by the Division when S.L.P.S. was ready

for discharge but the parents were unprepared to manage her medical needs. The

parents only visited S.L.P.S. eight to ten times in the three months she had been

in the hospital, did not know how to feed the child and neither was trained to

run the sleep apnea machine S.L.P.S. would need.

      The court granted the Division custody of S.L.P.S. and ordered her parents

to attend hospital trainings and comply with Family Preservation Services (FPS)

in-home services. Further, the Division ordered D.S.-R. to complete a substance

abuse evaluation.    Due to her ongoing medical issues, S.L.P.S. was not

discharged and remained in the hospital.

                                                                           A-2701-22
                                       3
      The Division never substantiated a finding of neglect due to abandonment

of S.L.P.S. but continued to offer services to address the child welfare concerns

that had led to her removal. In February 2020, the court dismissed the Division's

Title-Nine claims and continued the case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12 as a

family in need of services.

      Over the following months, the Division implemented those services and

coordinated with the hospital about S.L.P.S.'s needs. D.S.-R. and A.P. complied

for seven weeks, after which FPS recommended their less-intensive Step-Down

program to continue preparations for S.L.P.S.'s safe return. During this time,

the parents visited S.L.P.S. weekly and learned to feed her. However, the court

granted the Division the right to place S.L.P.S. in a resource home until the

parents fully complied with the hospital's discharge recommendations. On

February 14, 2020, S.L.P.S. was placed in an unrelated resource home where

she remains.

      The family began supervised visits immediately, but visits were put on

hold at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic due to concerns for S.L.P.S.'s fragile

health. The Division continued to provide the parents updates, pictures and

videos of her. The caseworker tried to speak with the parents weekly, but they

frequently did not answer their phone or return her voicemail messages.

                                                                           A-2701-22
                                       4
Ultimately, the Step-Down program terminated the family from the program for

non-compliance. In the summer of 2020, the Division arranged for video visits

with S.L.P.S., but neither parent participated.     Although in-person visits

restarted in July 2020, the parents did not see S.L.P.S. until December. The

parents went for month-long stretches of time without visiting. D.S.-R. did not

complete a court-ordered substance abuse evaluation or comply with a parenting

assessment, although he was aware of the requirement.

      Permanency goals of reunification were extended several times. D.S.-R.

attended a parenting risk assessment which recommended services—psychiatric

and substance abuse evaluations, individual counseling, parenting skills

training, and FPS. D.S.-R. reported attending mental health services, but he

never signed releases for the Division to confirm his compliance.

      Genetic testing showed S.L.P.S. had a gene-related disorder requiring

follow-up care with a neurologist or neurodevelopmental pediatrician and a

hematologist. The disorder also required continued care with a cardiologist,

audiologist, and ophthalmologist. Further testing was postponed multiple times,

to S.L.P.S.'s detriment, because the parents delayed signing the consent forms.

      D.S.-R. did not participate in any follow-up planning for S.L.P.S.'s

medical needs and did not visit consistently even when the court allowed

                                                                          A-2701-22
                                       5
unsupervised visits starting in summer 2021. The court reinstated supervised

visits because D.S.-R. still had not engaged in training to learn how to manage

S.L.P.S.'s medical needs should an emergency arise while he was caring for her.

      On January 27, 2022, the court changed the permanency plan to adoption.

D.S.-R. did not attend this hearing, and the caseworker met with him the next

day to update him on the case and encourage his participation in services. The

Division assessed all relative placements for S.L.P.S. provided by the parents

and proactively looked for relatives the parents did not provide. All were ruled

out for cause or were not interested in caring for S.L.P.S.

      In March 2022, the case proceeded to guardianship. When the Division

attempted to serve the parents, the apartment was vacant and staff at the leasing

office reported the family was evicted for nonpayment of rent. D.S.-R. received

the emails from the Division but did not respond until August 13, 2022. The

Division worker advised him of the proceeding, provided a 5A form, and asked

to meet with him. The Division had no further contact with him until December

2022, when the Division reached him by phone. A.P. left D.S.-R. after a

domestic violence incident for which she received a temporary restraining order.

                                                                           A-2701-22
                                        6
D.S.-R. had recently been released from an inpatient substance abuse treatment

program for using synthetic marijuana. 1

      On December 6, 2022, A.P. executed an identified surrender of her

parental rights so the resource parents could adopt S.L.P.S., and A.P. was

dismissed from the litigation. A.P. told her attorney D.S.-R. was arrested that

weekend. The court was able to produce him to appear in the guardianship

litigation. D.S.-R. was released from jail on December 12, but did not respond

to the Division's outreach for two more weeks. D.S.-R. never visited with

S.L.P.S. during the guardianship litigation and was homeless during this time.

      He did not attend individual therapy, a psychiatric evaluation, nor

parenting classes arranged by the Division. Neither did he attend a substance

abuse evaluation until a month before trial, at which time he asserted he received

services elsewhere. As of trial, the Division had not received confirmation

regarding the services D.S.-R. claimed he received.

      The guardianship trial was held on February 16 and March 2, 2023. The

law guardian supported termination of parental rights. Because S.L.P.S. became

1
  The Division received referrals on September 15 and October 3, 2022, alleging
concerns for the parents' care of the older children. On October 26, the Division
emergently removed those children and placed them with S.L.P.S.'s resource
parents after A.P. attempted suicide and was hospitalized.
                                                                            A-2701-22
                                        7
hysterical and refused to interact with D.S.-R. at their bonding evaluation, the

Division could not complete the evaluation and the court barred the defense from

pursuing a bonding evaluation to prevent further traumatization of S.L.P.S. The

court heard testimony from the family's caseworker, about the Division's

involvement with the family, which the judge found credible. The caseworker

testified about efforts to implement services for D.S.-R. and that—other than the

original psychological evaluation—he did not engage with any recommended or

court-ordered services, failed to visit S.L.P.S. consistently, and never learned

how to manage S.L.P.S.'s significant medical needs.

      The judge also heard testimony from the Division adoption worker, which

the judge deemed credible. The adoption worker testified about the Division's

involvement with the family since S.L.P.S.'s case was transferred to the adoption

unit. She confirmed that between March and December 2022, D.S.-R. made no

contact with the Division about S.L.P.S., despite multiple outreach efforts. She

also confirmed the Division had referred D.S.-R. for all recommended and court-

ordered services—substance abuse evaluation, parenting skills training,

individual therapy, and psychiatric and psychological evaluations—but he had

not attended any except the incomplete substance abuse assessment a month

before trial and the psychological evaluation a week before trial. D.S. -R. did

                                                                           A-2701-22
                                       8
finally provide a release on January 27, 2023, for rehabilitative services from

September 2022, and the Division received records the week before trial. The

adoption worker testified that although D.S.-R. was entitled to twice-weekly

visits with S.L.P.S. he had not seen her since March 2022. The adoption worker

also testified D.S.-R. had not provided either a plan for S.L.P.S.'s long-term care

or any additional relatives as possible placements.

      Due to S.L.P.S.'s medical conditions, the adoption worker confirmed she

would need ongoing medical oversight by team of doctors, as well as continued

monitoring of her genetic disorder. Additionally, the resource parents were

successfully providing for S.L.P.S.'s emotional, physical, and medical needs.

The resource parents told the Division they wished to adopt her.

      The court also heard the testimony of Alison Strasser Winston, Ph.D., an

expert in forensic psychology who evaluated the family.              Dr. Winston

questioned D.S.-R.'s ability to safely parent because his suspiciousness and fear

of rejection would keep him from seeking help with parenting challenges and

his hostility could lead him to "displace his frustration onto a child." Similarly,

his stress and feeling of being overwhelmed, combined with his poor coping

skills and verbally aggressive tendencies, could cause him to be aggressive

towards a child.

                                                                             A-2701-22
                                        9
      After the psychological evaluation, Dr. Winston attempted to conduct a

bonding evaluation between D.S.-R. and S.L.P.S. but she cried, clung to her

resource grandparent, and refused to engage. After about fifteen minutes, Dr.

Winston stopped the evaluation because it was too traumatizing to S.L.P.S.

      During Dr. Winston's bonding evaluation between S.L.P.S., her resource

parents, and their two biological children, S.L.P.S. was comfortable, animated,

and upbeat. Dr. Winston opined the resource parents were the people S.L.P.S.

depended upon to consistently meet her needs and to provide her emotional

support. S.L.P.S.'s secure attachment with her resource parents would "allow

her to continue to flourish" if left in their care and removing her from their care

would be "emotionally and developmentally devastating." Dr. Winston testified

that S.L.P.S. should achieve permanency with her resource parents based on

their three-year proven ability to provide her with the love, care, and stability

she required. Dr. Winston opined D.S.-R. was an inconsistent presence in

S.L.P.S.'s life and could not provide her with stability or permanency. As such,

she opined D.S.-R.'s parental rights should be terminated, and that S.L.P.S.

would suffer only minimal harm, which her resource family's love and security

would mitigate.

                                                                             A-2701-22
                                       10
      Andrew P. Brown III, Ph.D., testified for D.S.-R. about psychological

testing he administered and opined D.S.-R. needed lifelong psychiatric services

for bipolar disorder. The testing also revealed depression, anxiety, and low self-

esteem. According to Dr. Brown, the symptoms of bipolar disorder—inability

to control anger, irritability, depression, mood swings, bad decision making,

impulsivity, and irrational behaviors—can only be controlled with medication

and treatment. Without such treatment, a person's ability to adequately parent

is compromised. D.S.-R. reported to Dr. Brown he had stable employment, lived

among relatives who would offer support, and would continue all S.L.P.S.'s

current services and medical treatments, but D.S.-R. provided no independent

proof of these facts. Dr. Brown opined D.S.-R. would be stable as long as he

remained in treatment and endorsed gradual reunification with S.L.P.S. through

therapeutic visitation. Dr. Brown did not opine on whether reunification—

which would remove S.L.P.S.—was in her best interest.

      D.S.-R. also testified. He discussed visits he had with his daughter and

showed the court some photos from his phone.

      On April 18, 2023, the court issued an oral opinion and determined the

Division had proven by clear and convincing evidence all four prongs of the

best-interests-of-the-child test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and terminated D.S.-R.'s

                                                                            A-2701-22
                                       11
parental rights to S.L.P.S. The judge rejected Dr. Brown's opinion, finding his

conclusion not credible because he was unfamiliar with the family's entire file.

The court credited the evidence showing the resource parents had provided

S.L.P.S. with all her medical care and were committed to adopting her despite

being aware of kinship legal guardianship.

      Under prong one of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), the court found by clear and

convincing evidence that D.S.-R.'s failure to engage with services placed

S.L.P.S. at an ongoing risk of harm. His inability to provide her with adequate

care also caused her harm by delaying her permanency. Under the second prong,

the court found D.S.-R. could not cease to inflict harm on S.L.P.S., because he

did not remedy the circumstances that led to her removal despite the Division's

attempts to provide services. The court found D.S.-R. unwilling or unable to

eliminate the harm facing S.L.P.S. and there was no realistic likelihood he could

safely care for her in the near future.

      As for reasonable efforts, the court found the Division had referred D.S.-

R. for extensive services to address the family's issues, meeting the first part of

prong three. The second part of prong three was satisfied because the Division

explored all reasonable alternatives to termination, including investigating

relative placements, finding none were in S.L.P.S.'s best interest. Despite being

                                                                             A-2701-22
                                          12
given ample support and time, D.S.-R. could not yet provide S.L.P.S. a safe and

stable home. Instead, S.L.P.S.'s resource parents were willing to adopt her in

order to continue providing her a loving, safe, and secure home. Thus, the court

found the Division had established by clear and convincing evidence termination

of D.S.-R.'s parental rights would not do S.L.P.S. more harm than good. The

court entered a judgment of guardianship terminating D.S.-R.'s parental rights

that same day. This appeal followed.

      Our review of that decision is limited. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394,

411 (1998). We defer to the judge's expertise as a Family Part judge. Id. at 412-

13. Additionally, we are bound by the Family Part judge's 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)). We conclude the factual

findings are fully supported by the record and the legal conclusions drawn

therefrom are unassailable.

      D.S.-R. raises numerous arguments which we conclude lack merit. D.S.-

R. argues evidence that termination was not in S.L.P.S.'s best interest was

ignored, which necessitates a reversal of the order terminating his parental

                                                                           A-2701-22
                                       13
rights. However, based on our extensive review of the record, we conclude there

is substantial, credible evidence to support the court's findings.

      Affirmed.

                                                                         A-2701-22
                                       14