DCPP VS. R.C., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF R.A.C. AND L.R.C. (FG-11-0030-18, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NO. A-4594-18T4
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
R.C.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF R.A.C.
and L.R.C.,
Minors.
_________________________
Submitted June 2, 2020 – Decided June 26, 2020
Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Mercer County,
Docket No. FG-11-0030-18.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public Defender,
of counsel; Louis W. Skinner, Designated Counsel, on
the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Sookie Bae, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Julie B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, on
the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minors (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel; Lynn B. Norcia,
Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant R.C. appeals from the June 6, 2019 judgment of guardianship
terminating his parental rights to his minor children, R.A.C. (Ryder) and L.R.C.
(Lillian).1 We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Wayne
Forrest in his comprehensive written opinion. We add these comments.
I
We summarize the most significant facts from the detailed review of the
evidence in Judge Forrest's opinion. In addition to Ryder and Lillian, defendant
has two other children, I.C. (Irene) and J.C. (Justin); at the time of the instant
1
We use initials and pseudonyms to protect the family's privacy. R. 1:38-
3(d)(12). On January 15, 2019, R.O. (Robin), the children's biological mother,
executed an identified surrender of her parental rights to their maternal aunt and
uncle.
A-4594-18T4
2
guardianship trial, both Irene and Justin were in the sole custody of J.T.
(Jessica), their biological mother. Although Irene and Justin are not subject to
this appeal, defendant's relationship with them resulted in the initial involvement
of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division), after several
domestic violence incidents between defendant and Jessica.
In October 2014, the Division first received a referral regarding Ryder and
Lillian, after defendant and Robin were involved in a physical altercation in the
presence of Ryder. Defendant put Robin in a "bear hug" after she punched him
several times. The incident resulted in Robin obtaining a temporary restraining
order (TRO); however, she dropped it two days later. A few days later, while
pregnant with Lillian, Robin was admitted for psychiatric treatment related to
depression and the hospital made a referral to the Division concerning her
mental health and fitness.
Defendant cared for Ryder throughout Robin's admission. At the time, he
lived with his parents and was unemployed. He also informed the Division that
he is prescribed and smokes medical marijuana for his ulcerative colitis.
Defendant maintains he does not smoke marijuana in the presence of his
children. Defendant also admitted to having the physical altercation with Robin
A-4594-18T4
3
earlier that month. The Division completed a home assessment for defendant's
parents' home and no issues were noted.
Between November 2014 and March 2016, the Division received
additional referrals involving domestic violence in the presence of children.
Robin also obtained and dropped a second TRO. On March 2, 2016, following
a referral received from the children's day care, the Division initiated an
emergency removal of the children and placed them in a licensed resource home.
On March 4, 2016, the Division filed a verified complaint and received
custody, care and supervision of the children. The Division requested defendant
provide the names of any relatives who could be assessed for placement of the
children; he provided none. The court ordered defendant to participate in a risk
assessment and batterer's program and anger management. At that time, the
TRO remained in place and restrained defendant's ability to see the children.
The Division then placed Ryder and Lillian with their maternal
grandparents. In response, a Division caseworker testified that defendant
threatened to blow up their home. Ryder and Lillian were eventually placed
with their maternal aunt and uncle, after the maternal grandparents informed the
Division they no longer wanted to care for the children because of their concerns
regarding defendant.
A-4594-18T4
4
Before the guardianship trial, the Division provided defendant with
individual counseling, domestic violence and substance abuse treatment, a ten-
week strengthening families program, a psychological and parenting capacity
evaluation and supervised visitation with the children. Although defendant had
many positive supervised visits with the children, he became "more erratic and
unpredictable" as the guardianship proceedings progressed, often threatening
and berating Division caseworkers. During one visit, defendant took a
photograph and video of Ryder on the toilet because he claimed the resource
parents pinched and hit the child. He posted the video on Facebook proclaiming
the incident "will become a national matter."
At the time of trial, defendant remained unemployed, had no permanent
housing, and had no realistic plan for reunification with his children. A Division
expert in the field of psychology, Dr. Barry Katz, testified that Ryder and Lillian
displayed signs of complex trauma because of their exposure to extreme parental
conflict, early instability, inappropriate expressions of anger, and inappropriate
behavior on the part of their parents. He concluded that the children experienced
a "trauma bond" in the presence of defendant. Dr. Katz opined that the resource
parents are the children's psychological parents and primary nurturing figures.
He concluded the removal of the children from the resource parents would be
A-4594-18T4
5
"horribly traumatic and would have compounding effects, not only in the short
term but in the long term as well." Dr. Katz recommended there be no continued
contact between defendant and the children.
Another Division expert in the field of psychology, Dr. Meryl Udell,
testified that despite completing court ordered services, defendant failed to
attain improved parenting skills and anger management. Dr. Udell noted
defendant's constant blaming of others and the minimization of his own
problems. She concluded there was nothing defendant could do to change his
personality structure in order to successfully parent his children. Dr. Udell
diagnosed defendant with narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial traits, and
impulse control disorder.
The Division also produced Kevin Enright, Ph.D. as a fact witness. Dr.
Enright treated defendant for approximately two years, between 2016 and 2018,
as a Division-contracted provider. Dr. Enright confirmed he never
recommended defendant visit his children unsupervised. Dr. Enright expressed
concerns about defendant's sexual judgment, noting: defendant admitted to
showering with his daughters at a young age; allowing Lillian to change in a
men's locker room, contrary to a court order; refusing to wear underwear
A-4594-18T4
6
underneath his kickboxing outfit; and the video of Ryder which he posted on the
internet.
Defendant presented Dr. Gerald A. Figurelli as an expert in the field of
psychology. Dr. Figurelli, testified that although defendant was not
experiencing "a diagnosable psychiatric illness that requires formal mental
health treatment," his personality test results "reflect his history of problems
with control over the expression of his anger and aggression; his history of
substance abusing behavior and his history of offending behavior." Dr. Figurelli
opined defendant was not fit to parent his children at the time of trial, but could
become fit if provided additional services, distinguishing between "capacity to
parent" and "being in a position to parent."
However, Dr. Figurelli conceded there was no certainty that defendant
would benefit from additional services. Furthermore, he testified that if
defendant failed to demonstrate progress after receiving additional services in a
three- to six-month timeframe, "the children's permanency needs at that point
would not be served by waiting any longer for [defendant] to be able to achieve
that level of parenting." On cross-examination, Dr. Figurelli acknowledged that
three to six months had already elapsed since his evaluation. He further
acknowledged the children would experience the impact of the loss of their
A-4594-18T4
7
relationship with the resource parents, with whom they were "thriving," if
separated from them.
In a detailed, 109-page opinion issued on the same day as the judgment of
guardianship, Judge Forrest concluded that the Division satisfied all four prongs
of the best interests of the child test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a. The judge found Dr.
Katz, Dr. Udell and Dr. Figurelli to all be credible expert witnesses. Regarding
defendant's testimony, the judge noted he appeared "to lack a fundamental
understanding regarding the inappropriateness of his behavior in situations as
documented by [t]he Division, and the need for permanency for his two
children."
Judge Forrest found the Division proved the children's safety, health and
development had been, and would continue to be endangered by a parental
relationship with defendant. In this regard, the judge noted defendant's
inappropriate actions during visits, his failure to benefit from services provided
by the Division, and his inability to accept responsibility for his past actions,
especially those related to domestic violence and criminal behavior. The judge
further explained,
Throughout the litigation, [defendant] has been unable to
obtain and maintain stable and appropriate housing and
stable employment. While [defendant] completed all of his
court ordered services, he has not been able to benefit from
A-4594-18T4
8
those services. [Defendant]'s behavior with his children
and the Division declined as the litigation went on, and has
not seen any improvement. Additionally, [defendant] has
been unable to take responsibility for his own actions
which led to his domestic violence and criminal history
and history with the [D]ivision. Therefore, [defendant] is
unable and unwilling to eliminate the harm facing [Ryder]
and [Lillian], provide a safe and stable home for [Ryder]
and [Lillian] and further delay in permanency will add to
[the harm].
He also noted the children had "been in placement since March 2, 2016 and
deserve permanency, which can be achieved with their current relative
caretakers."
Judge Forrest found the Division extended numerous resources to
defendant, but that he failed to take advantage of those services and continued
"his pattern of severe narcissism, intimidation, control and risk for emotional
abuse and neglect of his children." The judge found the Division proved by
clear and convincing evidence that the termination of parental rights would not
do more harm than good.
II
On appeal, defendant contends that the Division failed to prove all four
prongs of the best interests test. He presents the following points of argument:
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ITS
CONCLUSION THAT TERMINATION OF
PARENTAL RIGHTS IS IN THE BEST
A-4594-18T4
9
INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN UNDER
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a.
A. THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN
CONCLUDING THAT [RYDER]
AND [LILLIAN] WERE HARMED
BY [DEFENDANT].
B. THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN
CONCLUDING THAT
[DEFENDANT] IS UNWILLING OR
UNABLE TO ELIMINATE THE
ALLEGED HARM TO
DEFENDANT AND [LILLIAN] OR
TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND
STABLE HOME.
C. THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN
CONCLUDING THAT [THE
DIVISION] EXERCISED
REASONABLE EFFORTS TO
PROVIDE SERVICES TO HELP
[DEFENDANT] CORRECT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO
THE CHILDREN'S PLACEMENT
OUTSIDE THE HOME.
D. THE COURT'S CONCLUSION
THAT TERMINATION OF
PARENTAL RIGHTS WILL NOT
DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD IS
ERRONEOUS.
Parents have a constitutionally protected right to enjoy a relationship with
and to raise their children. N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. G.L., 191
N.J. 596, 605 (2007). "[T]erminations should be granted sparingly and with
A-4594-18T4
10
great caution because they irretrievably impair imperative constitutionally-
protected liberty interests and scores of centuries of societal family constructs."
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 553 (2014). However,
a parent's rights are not absolute. Ibid. "Because of its parens patriae
responsibility, the State may terminate parental rights if the child is at r isk of
serious physical or emotional harm or when necessary to protect the child's best
interests." Id. at 553-54.
In order for the State to terminate parental rights, it must satisfy the
following prongs of the "best interests of the child" test by clear and convincing
evidence:
(1) The child's safety, health or development has been
or will continue to be endangered by the parental
relationship;
(2) The parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the
harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to
provide a safe and stable home for the child and the
delay of permanent placement will add to the harm.
Such harm may include evidence that separating the
child from his resource family parents would cause
serious and enduring emotional or psychological harm
to the child;
(3) The division has made reasonable efforts to provide
services to help the parent correct the circumstances
which led to the child's placement outside the home and
the court has considered alternatives to termination of
parental rights; and
A-4594-18T4
11
(4) Termination of parental rights will not do more
harm than good.
[N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a.]
The four prongs "are not discrete and separate; they relate to and overlap with
one another to provide a comprehensive standard that identifies a child's best
interests," with parental fitness being the critical issue. In re Guardianship of
K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 348 (1999). The considerations involved are fact-
sensitive and require particularized evidence that address the specific
circumstances present in each case. Ibid.
Our review of Judge Forrest's decision is limited. See N.J. Div. of Youth
& Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 278-79 (2007). We will not disturb a
trial judge's factual findings so long as they are supported by substantial credible
evidence. R.G., 217 N.J. at 552. We defer to the judge's evaluation of witness
credibility, and to his expertise in family court matters. Id. at 552-53; Cesare v.
Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-13 (1998).
Having reviewed the record in light of those legal standards, we find that
Judge Forrest's factual findings are supported by substantial credible evidence ,
and he reached correct legal conclusions based on those findings. Defendant's
A-4594-18T4
12
contentions on appeal are not supported by the record and are without sufficient
merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We add these final comments. As Judge Forrest found, defendant remains
unable to secure employment and permanent housing due to his aggressive
nature and inability to work with others; he continues to be incapable of caring
for himself, much less for Ryder and Lillian. This was evidenced by his constant
outbursts and inappropriate behavior during his supervised visitation and
psychological evaluations. The record supports Judge Forrest's determination
that Ryder and Lilian have bonded with their maternal aunt and uncle, who wish
to adopt them, and the children would suffer severe harm if removed from their
care. The termination of defendant's parental rights is in the children's best
interests, as their need for a permanent, stable home is paramount.
Affirmed.
A-4594-18T4
13