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

Defendant J.E., the biological mother of D.P., born in 2010, appeals from a December 12, 2012 judgment of guardianship, which terminated her parental rights to the child.¹  Defendant contends that the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the “Division”) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C–15.1a by clear and convincing evidence.   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 defendant.   Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in Judge Mary Gibbons Whipple's thirty-five page written decision.   We add the following brief comments.

We are satisfied that, commencing with the Division's involvement with defendant in June 2010, and continuing up to and including the commencement of the trial two years and three months later, defendant was unable to overcome the deficiencies that rendered her unable to safely parent the child.   Defendant has a history of mental health illness, behavioral problems, and substance abuse.   The Division removed the child two months after his birth because of defendant's drug problem.   On at least two occasions, the Division returned the child to defendant, but then removed the child because defendant continued to test positive for drugs.   The credible expert evidence demonstrates that defendant lacks the capacity to care for the child and is incapable of providing him a safe, stable, and permanent home.

Judge Whipple 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.   Her 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 therefore affirm substantially for the reasons that the judge expressed in her comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The biological father, J.P., is not involved in this appeal..  FN1. The biological father, J.P., is not involved in this appeal.

PER CURIAM