DCPP VS. T.H., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF I.H. AND P.H., JR. (FG-01-0034-17, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                       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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2077-17T4
    NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF
    CHILD PROTECTION AND
    PERMANENCY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    T.H.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________________
    IN THE MATTER OF THE
    GUARDIANSHIP OF I.H.
    and P.H., JR.,
    Minors.
    _______________________________
    Submitted December 13, 2018 – Decided January 8, 2019
    Before Judges Simonelli and O'Connor.
    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County,
    Docket No. FG-01-0034-17.
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
    appellant (Dianne Glenn, Designated Counsel, on the
    briefs).
    Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
    respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
    General, of counsel; Nicholas Logothetis, Deputy
    Attorney General, on the brief).
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
    attorney for minors (Meredith A. Pollock, Deputy
    Public Defender, of counsel; Damen J. Thiel,
    Designated Counsel, on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Defendant T.H., the biological mother of I.H., born in October 2014, and
    P.H., Jr., born in October 2015, appeals from the December 20, 2017 judgment
    of guardianship terminating her parental rights to the children. 1 On appeal,
    defendant contends the trial judge erred in finding respondent New Jersey
    Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) proved all four prongs
    of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm.
    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
    1
    The judgment also terminated the parental rights of the children's biological
    father, P.H., Sr., who voluntarily surrendered his parental rights and does not
    appeal.
    A-2077-17T4
    2
    Judge W. Todd Miller's comprehensive written opinion, dated December 20,
    2017. We add the following comments.
    Defendant has two other children, C.L., born in May 2011, and R.L., born
    in May 2012. Defendant became involved with the Division in July 2013, based
    on allegations of defendant's abuse of alcohol in the children's presence and poor
    conditions in the home. Defendant voluntarily surrendered her parental rights
    to C.L. and R.L. and her involvement with the Division continued with respect
    to I.H. and P.H., Jr.
    From July 2013 until the start of the guardianship trial in October 2017,
    defendant's involvement with the Division was marked by her unresolved mental
    health problems, substance abuse, lack of employment, instability, domestic
    violence with P.H., Sr., failure to protect R.L. from P.H., Sr.'s physical abuse,
    criminal activity and incarcerations, sporadic visitation, and non-compliance
    with the numerous services the Division offered.
    The Division's undisputed expert psychological evidence confirmed
    defendant lacked the minimal ability to adequately parent I.H. and P.H., Jr.,
    could not safely parent the children, and her prognosis was poor. The Division's
    undisputed expert bonding evidence confirmed the children would not suffer
    A-2077-17T4
    3
    severe and enduring harm if separated from defendant, but would suffer
    enduring harm if separated from their resource parents, who want to adopt them.
    Judge Miller 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 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 amply
    supported by the record. F.M., 211 N.J. at 448-49. We affirm substantially for
    the reasons Judge Miller expressed in his cogent written opinion.
    Affirmed.
    A-2077-17T4
    4