NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF (2013)

Defendant I.G., the biological mother of B.C., born in May 2008, and defendant R.C., the child's biological father, appeal from the December 12, 2012 judgment of guardianship, which terminated their parental rights to the child.   Defendants contend that plaintiff New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C–15.1a by clear and convincing evidence.¹  After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court, and in light of prevailing legal standards and arguments presented, we affirm.

We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's involvement with defendants.   Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge George Sabbath's comprehensive December 12, 2012 oral opinion.   We add only the following comments.

We are satisfied that commencing with the Division's re-involvement with the family in October 2010, and continuing up to and including the commencement of the trial two years later, defendants were unable to overcome the deficiencies that rendered them unable to safely parent their child.   The Division had removed B.C. from defendants' care shortly after the child's birth in May 2008.   Reunification occurred in August 2008, but failed in November 2010.   At that time, B.C. was found not to be thriving.   He was non-verbal, developmentally delayed, could not walk on his own, had trouble eating and drinking, and suffered from asthma.   He required medical treatment for his asthma and occupational, physical, and speech therapy.   Undisputed expert evidence confirmed that defendants' significant cognitive limitations and intellectual deficits made them incapable of benefiting from services, and incapable of parenting B.C. and providing him a safe, stable, and permanent home.

Judge Sabbath carefully reviewed the evidence presented, and thereafter concluded that the Division had met by clear and convincing evidence all of the legal requirements for a judgment of guardianship.   His opinion tracks the statutory requirements of N.J.S.A. 30:4C–15.1a, accords with 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 supported by substantial and credible evidence in the record.  N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448–49 (2012).   We affirm substantially for the reasons the judge expressed in his comprehensive and well-reasoned oral opinion.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. We reject I.G.'s additional contention that the trial judge improperly admitted into evidence the Division's contact sheets.   The documents were admissible pursuant to In re Cope, 106 N.J. Super 336, 343–44 (App.Div.1969), N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6), and Rule 5:12–4(d).  In any event, the trial judge made clear he did not rely on those documents in rendering his decision..  FN1. We reject I.G.'s additional contention that the trial judge improperly admitted into evidence the Division's contact sheets.   The documents were admissible pursuant to In re Cope, 106 N.J. Super 336, 343–44 (App.Div.1969), N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6), and Rule 5:12–4(d).  In any event, the trial judge made clear he did not rely on those documents in rendering his decision.

PER CURIAM