DCPP VS. F.D. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF D.D. AND F.D.(FG-09-118-13, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2017 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4516-15T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
F.D.,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF D.D.
and F.D.,
Minors.
___________________________________________________
Submitted May 31, 2017 – Decided June 28, 2017
Before Judges Messano and Suter.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson
County, Docket No. FG-09-118-13.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Jennifer M. Kurtz, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Andrea M. Silkowitz,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lauren
J. Oliverio, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law
Guardian for minors (Sean Lardner, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In our prior opinion, we affirmed termination of the parental
rights of defendant, F.D. (Felicia), to three of her children, and
reversed the trial court's denial of a motion for reconsideration
filed by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the
Division), following dismissal of the Division's guardianship
complaint as to defendant's two other children, F.D. (Fay) and
D.D. (Doris).1 N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. H.R.,
Nos. A-4991-13, A-4992-13, A-2104-14 (App. Div. Jan. 4, 2016)
(slip op. at 2-3). In doing so, we affirmed the judge's findings
and conclusions with respect to the first three prongs of the
statutory best-interests-of-the-child test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-
15.1(a)(1)-(3), as to all five children. Id. at 18-23. The judge
also concluded the Division met its burden of proof on the fourth
prong as to Felicia's three other children, but, as to Fay and
Doris, the judge concluded the Division failed to carry its burden
1
We use initials and pseudonyms to protect the privacy of those
involved.
2 A-4516-15T1
of proof, given the lack of a specific, then-available adoptive
home for the girls. Id. at 24.
We concluded the judge should have granted the Division's
motion for reconsideration based upon new evidence. Specifically,
the girls' foster mother, with whom they were placed near the end
of the guardianship trial, now wished to adopt them. Id. at 27.
We remanded "for a hearing as to whether '[t]ermination of parental
rights will not do more harm than good.'" Id. at 28-29 (citing
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4)).2 We did not retain jurisdiction. Id.
at 29.
The trial judge conducted the remand hearing and considered
the testimony of the Division's caseworker, Kerry Farrell, its
psychological expert, Dr. Frank Dyer, who also testified at the
guardianship trial, and T.L. (Tara), Fay's and Doris's putative
adoptive parent.
Tara expressed her desire to adopt the girls, and her
willingness to permit their continued contact with Felicia and
their other siblings. Farrell detailed the history of the girls'
placements, noted they had been with Tara now for approximately
twenty-six months, and were doing very well. She reiterated Tara's
desire to adopt Fay and Doris, and the girls' desire to be adopted.
2
H.R., the father of all five children, died during the remand
proceedings.
3 A-4516-15T1
Dr. Dyer testified regarding the psychological evaluation of
Felicia and the bonding evaluations he conducted after the
guardianship trial and prior to the remand hearing.
In her comprehensive oral opinion, the judge reviewed the
testimony and found Tara and Farrell to be credible witnesses.
She considered Dr. Dyer's most recent evaluations and accepted his
opinion that Felicia remained unable to parent the children and
"her inability [was] not at all likely to change in the foreseeable
future." The judge also found that both Fay and Doris lacked any
strong attachment to their mother, and the girls had formed a
strong attachment to Tara.
The judge also concluded that severing the girls'
relationship with Felicia might cause some harm, but not any
"serious loss or psychological harm," and any harm could be
mitigated by the strong relationship Fay and Doris had formed with
Tara. The judge found by clear and convincing evidence that
terminating Felicia's parental rights "would not do more harm than
good." She entered a conforming order, and this appeal followed.
Before us, Felicia argues the Division failed to prove that
termination of her parental rights to Fay and Doris would not do
more harm than good, and the Division failed to provide adequate
services to support reunification. See N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(3)
(requiring the Division to make "reasonable efforts to provide
4 A-4516-15T1
services to help the parent correct the circumstances which led
to the child's placement outside the home"). The Division urges
us to affirm, arguing the judge properly limited the remand hearing
to consideration of prong four, and the Division's proofs were
clear and convincing. Similarly, the children's Law Guardian
supports affirmance of the termination order.
Having considered these arguments in light of the record and
applicable legal principles, we affirm. The judge's factual
findings are adequately supported by the evidence adduced at the
remand hearing. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). Additionally, the judge's
legal conclusions were appropriate and wholly supported by the
record evidence. See, e.g., N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs.
v. L.L., 201 N.J. 210, 227 (2010) (holding the judge's legal
conclusions should not be disturbed unless they are "clearly
mistaken or wide of the mark[,]" and require our intervention "to
ensure the fairness of the proceeding" (alteration in original)
(quoting N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J.
88, 104 (2008))).
Affirmed.
5 A-4516-15T1