Court Opinion

ID: 9906280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 16:08:26.917983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:13.550812
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                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1638-22

NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,

         Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

P.R.,

         Defendant,

and

M.J.,

     Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF B.J.,
a minor.
_______________________

                   Submitted November 6, 2023 – Decided December 1, 2023

                   Before Judges Berdote Byrne and Bishop-Thompson.
            On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
            Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
            No. FG-07-0063-22.

            Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
            appellant (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the
            briefs).

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

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

PER CURIAM

      Defendant appeals the trial court's termination of his parental rights to B.J.

(Jack)1 following trial and claims ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we

find defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel's representation, we conclude

defendant fails to demonstrate a prima facie case for ineffective assistance of

counsel.   We also conclude there exists clear and convincing admissible

evidence in the record on which the trial judge found the Division of Child

1
  We use pseudonyms to protect the identity of the family members relevant to
this appeal pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d)(12) and for ease of reference. In doing
so, we mean no disrespect to the family members.
                                                                             A-1638-22
                                         2
Protection and Permanency (Division) proved all four prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-

15.1(a) and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the Honorable Gary

J. Furnari, J.S.C. in his well-reasoned and thorough 65-page opinion.

                                        I.

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

defendant. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal

conclusions contained in Judge Furnari's decision and summarize the facts

relevant to defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

      Jack was born March 2021, to defendant and P.R. (Pearl). At the time of

Jack's birth, defendant was incarcerated for committing domestic violence

against Pearl while she was pregnant with Jack. Defendant immediately denied

paternity. Jack was removed from Pearl's care at birth due to her mental health

issues and placed with his current resource parents. Pearl was unable to care for

Jack and voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to Jack prior to trial.

      Throughout the litigation, defendant declined to cooperate with the

Division and failed to communicate with his appointed trial counsel. He refused

to sign documents to secure legal representation and stated he was more

concerned with his pending criminal case than the Division's case. When a

LabCorp agent arrived at the Essex County Correctional Facility to administer

                                                                               A-1638-22
                                        3
the court-ordered paternity test, defendant refused to take the test and sign the

refusal form. At a subsequent compliance review hearing, defendant declined

to explain why he was refusing counsel or the paternity test. He stated he simply

did not want to discuss the child.

      Despite a court order and despite knowing Jack was in resource care,

defendant continued to refuse to take the paternity test on four separate

occasions:   in April, June, and October 2021, and March 2022.           In total,

defendant stalled the establishment of paternity for fifteen months, all the while

stating he would seek full custody if he was the father. Yet, when the Division

asked him for the names of family members who could serve as Jack's potential

caregivers, defendant asked why he would give the Division any names if Jack

was not his son.

      Throughout Jack's short life, defendant met with Jack only eight times,

and spent less than nine hours with him. As detailed by Judge Furnari, although

defendant stated he wanted full custody of Jack and would care for him once he

learned he was Jack's biological father, defendant failed to present an adequate

parenting plan, failed to address his untreated mental health and anger

management issues, and failed to secure employment or stable housing during

the course of Jack's placement in resource care, up through and including the

                                                                           A-1638-22
                                        4
guardianship trial. He missed three psychological evaluations scheduled by the

Division, did not avail himself of parental and mental health resources offered

to him while in or out of prison, did not obtain steady employment or a

permanent residence, and was reincarcerated just prior to trial.

       When the Division sought to find relative caregivers for Jack, all efforts

failed. Pearl named B.F., Jack's grandmother, but B.F. was unable to care for

the child. Pearl's godmother, M.O., was also mentioned, but she declined. 2 In

April 2021, Pearl named two more relatives as potential caretakers for Jack:

defendant's sister, also named B.F. (Barbara), and her cousin, A.F. Barbara

stated she could not financially support Jack at that time. A.F. stated he resided

in Texas and could not care for Jack because he and his wife worked long hours.

The Division explored Barbara again when defendant volunteered her to serve

as Jack's Kinship Legal Guardian,3 but she failed to remain in contact with the

Division and did not complete her KLG assessment.

       At trial on January 11, 2023, defendant was incarcerated for an unrelated

matter. He was contacted by the court and specifically told to appear, but a

2
  The record shows the Division contacted numerous other individuals, who
were each ruled out.
3
    N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-1 to -7.
                                                                           A-1638-22
                                        5
prison official testified defendant declined and refused to sign the court refusal

form. Defendant's designated counsel appeared but did not call him to testify.

She did not have any expert or lay witnesses testify on defendant's behalf and

declined to make an opening statement or object to the State's evidentiary

exhibits. She also waived summation. The State called only one witness, the

Division caseworker.

      In its opinion, the trial court noted defendant and Pearl's relationship was

marred by a history of domestic violence, with defendant repeatedly

incarcerated over the years—both prior to Jack's birth and thereafter—and

subject to prior domestic violence complaints involving his other child, who was

the subject of an unrelated action with the Division. After detailing the factual

background of the Division's efforts to work with defendant, the court

determined the Division clearly and convincingly met each prong of the best

interests standard and established defendant's parental rights should be

terminated pursuant to N.J.S.A 30:4C-15.1.

      This appeal followed.

                                       II.

      A. Ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

                                                                           A-1638-22
                                        6
      New Jersey affords parents the right to effective counsel in termination

proceedings. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.D., 417 N.J. Super. 583,

609 (App. Div. 2011). Counsel is particularly important "when a parent's

'invaluable right to raise a child' is at stake due to the extreme importance of the

litigation," In re Adoption of Child by C.J., 463 N.J. Super. 254, 261 (App. Div.

2020) (quoting In re Adoption of J.E.V., 226 N.J. 90, 94 (2016)), in protecting

a fundamental and constitutionally protected interest, N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam.

Servs. v. B.R., 192 N.J. 301, 305 (2007). The defendant must establish each of

the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) factors: (1) objectively

deficient trial counsel that (2) prejudiced the defendant to the extent that there

is a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial but for trial counsel's

errors. M.D., 417 N.J. Super. at 609-10 (quoting B.R., 192 N.J. at 307).

      Defendant's "appellate counsel must provide a detailed exposition of how

the trial lawyer fell short and a statement regarding why the result would have

been different had the lawyer's performance not been deficient." B.R., 192 N.J.

at 311. (adopting standard for ineffective representation set forth in Strickland,

466 U.S. at 694 and in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58, (1987)). "[I]f the panel

accepts as true appellant's representations regarding the lawyer's shortcomings

                                                                             A-1638-22
                                         7
but determines, on the basis of the full record, that the outcome would not have

changed, that will be the end of it." Ibid.

      On appeal, defendant argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel

based on his trial attorney's failure to present any defense, make any legal

argument or objections, and to ensure defendant appeared for trial. In addition,

he claims counsel was ineffective because she "did not object to the court's

consideration of [his] absence from trial, which was not evidence in [the] case."

Defendant points to the lack of cross-examination of the Division's only witness.

The only issue defendant asserts his counsel should have addressed on cross -

examination relates to the recent amendments to the best interests test codified

at N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The Division's witness "was not questioned with

respect to whether the Legislature's findings, declarations, and amendments to

the . . . 'best interest' test and the KLG Act were considered . . . ." He claims

counsel should have been aware of the change in the relevant law and advocated

appropriately.

      Defendant also sets forth a novel interpretation of Rule 1:7-1(b).

According to defendant, Rule 1:7-1(b) "can be interpreted as making closing

arguments mandatory because the language only permits the order of the closing

arguments, and not its permissibility . . . ." He claims trial counsel violated Rule

                                                                             A-1638-22
                                         8
1:7-1(b) by waiving closing statement. Defendant argues trial counsel "did not

do anything to protect his rights and might as well have not been present at all.

It is as if defendant was alleged to [have] defaulted and trial counsel conceded

that default."

      With regards to his absence, defendant contends his trial counsel should

have objected to the court's consideration of his absence as a reason to terminate

his parental rights, as well as the court's reliance upon hearsay to establish

defendant's absence was voluntary. He states, because defendant's absence was

treated as a default, trial counsel should have asserted the court was precluded

from terminating defendant's parental rights partially on the basis that he did not

appear for trial.

      Defendant's arguments are belied by the record, which sets forth no basis

for his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Defendant fails to show his trial

counsel's performance fell outside the realm of professionally acceptable

performance, and, but for this claimed deficiency, there is a reasonable

probability he would have prevailed at trial. B.R. requires defendant provide a

detailed explanation of how the result would be different with effective counsel.

192 N.J. at 311. Here, defendant provides no certification as to which witnesses

his counsel should have called and what evidence should have been addressed.

                                                                            A-1638-22
                                        9
He does not certify he did not understand the proceedings or the consequences

of same. Defendant's claim fails because it is a bald assertion. See Strickland,

466 U.S. at 687, 699-700.

      Contrary to defendant's claim, the trial court did not consider defendant's

absence as evidence that weighed in favor of termination of his parental rights.

The only reference the court made of his absence came before its assessment of

the best interests standard, and the trial court did not enter a judgment by default.

      There is nothing in the record to demonstrate defendant would have

achieved a different result absent the claimed deficiencies. Defendant presented

no parenting plan to care for Jack and the only alternative he presented, care

provided by his sister Barbara, failed factually.        Defendant also failed to

demonstrate how counsel's failure to advocate for KLG would have caused a

different result, because both the Division and court considered and found KLG

futile because of Barbara's refusal to participate.

      B. Termination of parental rights.

      A trial court's decision to terminate parental rights is subject to limited

appellate review. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605

(2007). Indeed, a family court has "broad discretion because of its specialized

knowledge and experience in matters involving parental relationships and the

                                                                              A-1638-22
                                        10
best interests of children." N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. A.B., 231

N.J. 354, 365 (2017) (alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam.

Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 427 (2012)). Where a family court relies upon

evidence adduced at a hearing, we "defer to the factual findings . . . because it

has the opportunity to make first-hand credibility judgments about the witnesses

who appear on the stand; it has a 'feel of the case' that can never be realized by

a review of the cold record." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J.

88, 104 (2008) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J.

261, 293 (2007)). We defer to the factual findings of family courts "unless they

are so 'wide of the mark' that our intervention is necessary to correct an

injustice." F.M., 211 N.J. at 427 (quoting E.P., 196 N.J. at 104). Therefore, the

family court's decision to terminate parental rights will not be disturbed "when

there is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the court's

findings." E.P., 196 N.J. at 104.

      Defendant argues, with respect to the third prong of the best interests

standard, because the legislature removed qualifying language in the KLG

statute, which required consideration of KLG when "adoption of the child [was]

neither feasible nor likely," the new legislation mandates KLG as a preferred

placement over adoption.     Defendant's interpretation of the amendments is

                                                                           A-1638-22
                                       11
unavailing in light of the Supreme Court's recent holding in New Jersey Division

of Child Protection & Permanency v. D.C.A., ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2023) (slip op.

at 30-33).

      Nor can defendant base his ineffective assistance of trial counsel argument

on counsel's alleged failure to apprise the court of the changes in the KLG statute

because it is premised on a flawed interpretation. The failure to raise a different

argument lacking support in law will not satisfy the standard. See State v.

Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 360-61 (2009) (holding trial counsel was not ineffective

for failing to raise a losing argument.).

      Judge Furnari reviewed the evidence presented at the trial, made 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 the legal requirements for

a judgment of guardianship as to defendant. The judge's opinion tracks the

statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), accords with our well-

established case law on the matter, e.g., D.C.A., ___ N.J. at ___ (slip op. at 33-

35), and is amply supported by the record. We affirm substantially for the

reasons Judge Furnari expressed in his cogent written opinion.

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-1638-22
                                        12