Court Opinion

ID: 9927578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 15:06:55.685696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:36.617183
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                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1706-21

NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

S.J.,

          Defendant-Appellant,

and

G.M.,

          Defendant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF I.I.H.J.M.,
a minor.

                   Submitted January 17, 2024 – Decided January 29, 2024

                   Before Judges Sumners and Rose.
             On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
             Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County,
             Docket No. FG-09-0117-21.

             Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
             appellant (James Daniel O'Kelly, Designated Counsel,
             on the brief).

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

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

PER CURIAM

      At six months old, I.I.H.J.M (Ivan), born in June 2019, was removed from

the home of his biological parents, S.J. (Sarah), and G.M. (Greg), 1 and placed in

the custody of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency.                  The

precipitating series of referrals that led to Ivan's removal are not at issue in this

appeal. Suffice it to say, the Division filed a guardianship complaint after its

efforts to reunify Ivan with his parents failed.           During the Division's

1
  Consistent with the parties' briefs, we use initials and pseudonyms to protect
the confidentiality of these proceedings. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
                                                                               A-1706-21
                                         2
involvement with the family, Ivan endured several placements, including

relatives and a non-relative resource parent, M.H. (Melissa).

      Following the two-day guardianship trial, the Family Part judge issued a

judgment terminating the parental rights of Sarah and Greg to Ivan. In support

of the judgment, the trial judge issued a comprehensive oral decision, finding

the Division satisfied all four prongs of the best interests test under N.J.S.A.

30:4C-15.1(a), by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, Ivan was freed

for adoption by his then-current resource parent, J.S. (Jamie) – a cousin of Ivan's

half-brother's father.

      A few months after the January 20, 2022 guardianship judgment was

entered, while the parents' appeals were pending, Jamie requested Ivan's

removal for a second time. Jamie previously requested Ivan's removal within a

few days of his initial placement in December 2019. Immediately thereafter

Ivan was placed with Melissa until August 2020.

      Following Jamie's most recent request for Ivan's removal, the Division

again returned the child to Melissa's resource home where he currently resides.

Both parents moved for a remand to file a motion to vacate the judgment under

Rule 4:50-1. The Division and law guardian opposed the motion but consented

to a limited remand to reopen the second part of the third prong, whether the

                                                                             A-1706-21
                                        3
Division satisfied its burden to explore alternatives to termination, and the

fourth prong, whether termination of parental rights "will not do more harm than

good." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(3) and (4). In our order granting the remand

motion, we permitted the parties to present evidence to the trial court regarding

Ivan's status and custody and the parents to file a Rule 4:50-1 motion.

      In view of the trial judge's retirement, the matter was assigned to Judge

Margaret M. Marley, who denied the parents' ensuing Rule 4:50-1 motion to

vacate the judgment but conducted a multi-day testimonial hearing regarding

Ivan's custody and status. Sarah asserted that if Ivan could not be returned to

her, she proposed placement with E.D. (Edith), the child's paternal aunt, who

resides in Colorado. For the first time at the hearing, Sarah proposed additional

family members for consideration. During the hearing, the judge accepted the

identified surrender of Greg's parental rights to Ivan provided Melissa adopts

the child.2

      The Division presented the testimony of Frank Dyer, Ph.D., who

conducted a bonding evaluation between Ivan and Melissa; a caseworker, who

noted concerns about Edith because she lives far from Ivan's relatives and had a

2
  On Greg's application, we dismissed his appeal. Accordingly, he no longer is
a party to these proceedings.

                                                                           A-1706-21
                                       4
history of failing to communicate with the Division; and Melissa, who

confirmed she understood the difference between adoption and kinship legal

guardianship (KLG) and wished to adopt Ivan. The law guardian did not present

any evidence but remained aligned with the Division's plan for adoption by

Melissa. Sarah presented the testimony of Edith and testified on her own behalf.

The Division presented another caseworker to rebut Sarah's testimony that the

Division failed to explore her siblings and other relatives as potential caregivers.

      On January 13, 2023, Judge Marley issued a well-reasoned oral decision,

spanning more than fifty transcript pages. At the outset, the judge carefully

canvassed the evidence presented at the initial trial, finding no reason to disturb

the trial court's decision on the first and second prongs of the best interests test.

Similarly, the judge meticulously chronicled the testimony adduced at the

remand hearing and the supporting documentary evidence presented. The judge

thoroughly explained her factual and credibility findings, crediting the

testimony of the Division's witnesses and concluding the testimony of Sarah and

Edith lacked credibility.

      The judge considered Edith initially had been ruled out because she failed

to comply with the process for interstate placement, resided in Colorado and had

never met Ivan in person, and was recently approved as a caretaker by that state

                                                                              A-1706-21
                                         5
despite the Division's concerns. Conversely, the judge noted Ivan lived with

Melissa for sixteen and one-half months. Moreover, after the child was removed

from her home, Melissa agreed to assist Jamie by taking Ivan "for weekends

twice a month, from Friday afternoon to Sunday afternoon." The judge thus

concluded: "So in reality, [Melissa] has been in the child['s] . . . life in some

capacity as a caregiver for seemingly thirty-two and a half months of his forty-

two-month lifetime."

      Citing Dr. Dyer's bonding evaluation, the judge noted Ivan appeared

"happy, relaxed, and secure" with Melissa. The judge was persuaded by Dr.

Dyer's findings that Ivan was "in a in a critical stage of personality formation";

"ha[d] a very significant emotional tie to [Melissa]"; would continue to thrive in

her home; and if placed with a stranger would be "at risk for severe personality

disorder and emotional problems entering adolescence and adulthood given his

previous history of disruptions."

      Turning to the fourth prong, Judge Marley expressed the court's concern

            that well-intentioned and appropriate efforts to place
            this child in the home of kin has resulted in adults
            returning this child to the Division as a result of their
            ill-prepared and poorly thought-out approach to
            accepting the responsibility of custody of a child.

                   The end result is that the quest for kin has instead
            left our child in the foster care system indefinitely with

                                                                            A-1706-21
                                        6
            current proposals that he be left there for an even longer
            time.

                  The goal of serving and upholding the child's best
            interest and well-being have been derailed in this quest.

                   This court has been presented with no expert
            opinion to suggest that the [termination of parental
            rights] will now do more harm than good than it would
            have done at the time of the [trial] court's rendering the
            termination of parental rights decision.

                  The only opinion offered to this court has been a
            positive opinion about the bond between [Ivan] and the
            current resource parent.

                  A resource parent who has gone out of her way
            to offer herself to this child in every imaginable way,
            whether he was in her care or whether he was in the care
            of another.

                   A resource parent who has been a support for
            [the] other resource parent. A resource parent who has
            been the most stable presen[ce] in this child's life for
            the majority of his life.

                   This home may very well be the most stable home
            that this child has ever experienced.

      Sarah now appeals from the January 13, 2023 judgment terminating her

parental rights to Ivan, only challenging Judge Marley's decision on the third

                                                                         A-1706-21
                                        7
and fourth best interests prongs.3 For the first time on appeal, Sarah claims the

remand judge failed to consider KLG with Melissa as an alternative to

termination of her parental rights. She maintains termination of her parental

rights will do more harm than good.

      We have considered Sarah's contentions in view of the governing legal

principles and conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Judge Marley's unassailable findings are

supported by substantial credible evidence and are entitled to our deference.

N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014).

Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Marley in

her cogent oral opinion that accompanied the January 13, 2023 judgment. We

simply add because Sarah never proposed KLG with Melissa, there was no need

for the judge to consider the issue. Nonetheless, in her oral decision, Judge

Marley expressly noted Melissa clearly understood the differences between

KLG and adoption and "wanted adoption only" because "the child needs a secure

and permanent placement and home."

      Affirmed.

3
  Sarah's two other children are in the custody of their respective fathers and are
not parties to this appeal.

                                                                             A-1706-21
                                        8