DCPP VS. P.C. AND R.O., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.O. (FG-02-0056-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) ( 2020 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NOS. A-1803-18T1
A-1804-18T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
P.C. and R.O.,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF S.O.,
a Minor.
________________________
Submitted May 20, 2020 – Decided June 8, 2020
Before Judges Koblitz, Gooden Brown and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County,
Docket No. FG-02-0056-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant P.C. (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel; Jennifer L. Gottschalk,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant R.O. (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel; Bruce Pozu Lee, Designated
Counsel, on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Donna Sue Arons, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Susan J. Saraiva, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (Danielle Ruiz, Designated Counsel,
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant parents P.C. 1 and R.O. appeal from a December 11, 2018,
Family Part order terminating their parental rights to their daughter, S.O., who
was born drug-addicted in November 2011. The Law Guardian urges
affirmance. The parents' appeals were consolidated and we now affirm
substantially for the reasons stated by Judge William R. DeLorenzo, Jr. in his
thorough one-hundred-and-five-page written opinion issued with the order.
1
We use initials to preserve the privacy of the parties. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
A-1803-18T1
2
The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's opinion. A summary will
suffice here. P.C. lost her two older children due to her substance abuse. S.O.
was removed from her mother twice, the first time straight from the hospital at
birth. Her father at that time was in jail, and a few days later in a substance
abuse program. Eight months later, the baby was reunified with her mother at
an inpatient drug program. After extensive cooperation with drug rehabilitation
programs, inpatient and outpatient, P.C. relapsed and once again S.O. was
removed in May 2016. On April 18, 2017, the Division moved S.O. to the home
of her current resource parents, who want to adopt her.
Psychologist Dr. Frank Dyer, an experienced evaluator, conducted
psychological evaluations of the parents and a bonding evaluation of the parents
and the resource parents with S.O. Dr. Dyer opined that neither parent had the
capacity to parent S.O. safely. Although S.O. was more bonded to her mother
than her father, he opined that S.O. would not suffer "serious or long-lasting
emotional harm" if she were adopted by the resource parents and had no further
contact with P.C. He testified that the biological parents would not be able to
mitigate the harm if S.O. were removed from her resource parents, with whom
she has a strong and secure bond. The expert presented by the Law Guardian
performed an independent evaluation and agreed with Dr. Dyer.
A-1803-18T1
3
The mother's expert testified that S.O. should be returned to her "as long
as [she] presents as an adequate permanent placement plan for her." Judge
DeLorenzo was unpersuaded by the lone expert conditionally recommending
reunification. R.O. did not present a plan to parent his daughter, but rather in
his testimony asked the court to reunify his daughter with her mother, who at
the time of trial was living in Florida. P.C. attended trial but did not testify.
In his comprehensive opinion, Judge DeLorenzo found that the Division
had proven all four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and
that termination of defendants' parental rights was in the child's best interests.
On this appeal, our review of the trial judge's decision is limited. N.J. Div. of
Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 278 (2007). We defer to his
expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998),
and we are bound by his factual findings so long as they are "supported by
'adequate, substantial and credible evidence' on the record." M.M., 189 N.J. at
279 (quoting In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div.
1993)). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial judge's factual
findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, his legal
conclusions are unassailable. While both parents struggled against substance
abuse for many years, with the assistance of the resources of the Division, they
A-1803-18T1
4
were not able to achieve sustained sobriety. Their daughter was entitled to a
safe, stable permanent home that neither parent could provide.
Affirmed.
A-1803-18T1
5