In re C.M.
| Docket Number | A-3562-20 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 2022 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A CHILD BY C.M. AND C.M. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted March 7, 2022
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Salem County, Docket No. FA-19-21.
Masten and Ray, attorneys for appellant R.H. (Michael J. Napuda, on the brief).
Cooper Levenson, PA, attorneys for respondents C.M. and C.M (Jennifer B. Barr, on the brief). [1]
Before Judges Sabatino, Rothstadt and Natali.
In this contested private adoption matter, appellant R.H ("Rebecca" or "appellant") seeks reversal of the Family Part's July 20, 2021 order terminating her parental rights as to her biological daughter A.H-Q.F ("Amy"), pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:3-46(a). The trial court's findings were based on five days of extensive testimony adduced in proceedings at which appellant was represented by court-appointed pro bono counsel.
Appellant opposes the adoption of Amy by her own parents, respondents C.M. and C.M. (collectively referred to by the pseudonym "the Martins"). She fundamentally contends the evidence at trial was insufficient to justify the termination of her rights. Specifically, she contests the court's findings under the statutory criteria within N.J.S.A. 9:3-46(a), concluding that she had not "affirmatively assume[d] the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent" and that termination of her rights is in the child's "best interest." We reject her contentions and affirm.
Rebecca, who was born in 1989, is the adult adopted daughter of the Martins. The Martins adopted Rebecca in 2001 when she was twelve years old. By the time the Martins adopted her, Rebecca had been in and out of several resource homes. She had first been placed in foster care due to her biological mother's drug use and allegations of sexual abuse by her mother's boyfriend.
Rebecca has struggled with behavioral issues and depression as far back as she can remember. Her life has sadly only become more erratic since she left the Martins' home in 2007, at eighteen years old. She has a persisting drug addiction, and she has been in and out of jail on drug-related charges and other offenses.
Rebecca has been in relationships with a series of different men, some of whom she has met in her employment. She married T.H. in 2007, moved with him to several different states, and eventually divorced him in 2010. In 2009 she met K.R. at work and started a relationship with him that produced two children, E.M. ("Evan") in March 2010 and Amy in August 2015. Rebecca married K.R. in 2014. K.R. appears to have not been involved in the raising of the two children, and he is not a party to this appeal or an objector to Amy's adoption.
Rebecca continued moving from home to home in various states. She gave birth to Evan in 2010 while living with a boyfriend, J.B., who she left the following year in 2011. Rebecca also gave birth in September 2018 to a third child, Devon, who is in the custody of his biological father, D.A.
In August 2012, Evan, then age two, was reportedly found in the back seat of a car with a stranger who did not know Rebecca or Evan's last names. Evan was placed temporarily in the custody of the Martins, but then was returned to Rebecca.
In February 2013, Rebecca contacted the Martins and told them she and Evan were living in Philadelphia at a place that lacked heating or electricity. The Martins picked up Evan and he has lived with them since that time. In 2015 the Martins adopted Evan, after Rebecca eventually consented to having her parental rights terminated.
When Amy was born in August 2015, Rebecca was living with T.S., a friend of her biological mother. Two years later in June 2017, Rebecca and Amy moved in with her biological mother's brother, G.C.
In October 2017 Rebecca and G.C. were arrested on incest and drug-related charges. Amy, then two years old, was placed in emergency foster care.
At a hearing in December 2017, the Martins were awarded sole custody of Amy. The child has lived there with her brother Evan, and the Martins' two teenaged biological children, since that time. The court's custody order allowed Rebecca a minimum of once-per-month visits with Amy, on the condition that she keep up with drug and mental health treatment.
Unfortunately, Rebecca continued to have problems with addiction and law-breaking behavior. She did not see Amy for over four months from December 2017 through April 2018 when the Martins brought Amy for a visit at an in-patient drug facility. She moved back in with T.S. in May 2018, and her visits with Amy became more sporadic after September 2018.
In December 2019 Rebecca abruptly cancelled a planned visit with Amy and the Martins due to alleged car trouble. She did not see Amy in person again through the time of the July 2021 adoption trial, a period of over eighteen months. They only had occasional telephone and video call contact during that time.
In March 2020 Rebecca was convicted in Pennsylvania of a weapons offense and incarcerated in that state. She was released in April 2020 on a COVID-19 furlough, but was re-incarcerated the next month on conspiracy charges.
The Martins filed a complaint to adopt Amy in January 2021. Rebecca opposed the termination of her parental rights. After five days of hearings in July 2021, Judge Michael R. Ostrowksi granted the termination, and this appeal ensued.[2]
The applicable legal and statutory principles that guide our review are undisputed. We first discuss the substantive ones.
In the absence of a biological parent's consent to surrender parental rights, a court must terminate the parental rights of the biological parent before it can authorize the adoption of a child. In re the Adoption of Children by G.P.B., Jr., 161 N.J. 396, 404 (1999). There are three statutory pathways through which parental rights may be terminated by court order: (1) under Title 30, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15, by which an action for guardianship is decided in favor of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency; (2) under Title 9, N.J.S.A. 9:2-18, by which a state-approved adoption agency successfully pursues an action for termination; and (3) again under Title 9, N.J.S.A. 9:3-46, by which a possible adoptive parent brings an adoption complaint. Robert A. Fall & Curtis J. Romanowski, Current N.J. Child Custody, Protection & Support ("Child Custody"), § 6:1-3 (2021). This last pathway is the one involved here.
Whether in the Title 30 or Title 9 context, we must and do recognize that the termination of a parent's right to raise his or her child is a matter of constitutional magnitude. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); see also In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 346 (1999); In re Adoption of J.E.V., 442 N.J.Super. 472, 481, 487 (App. Div. 2015) ( that once a private adoption agency proceeds to seek adoption over the objection of a parent, that parent has the right to counsel, as "[a]fter the elimination of the death penalty, [this court] [could] think of no legal consequence of greater magnitude than the termination of parental rights.").
In G.P.B., Jr., our Supreme Court charted the evolution of Title 9 as it bears upon adoption matters. The Court particularly emphasized where certain core concepts included in Title 9 differ from their similarly phrased counterparts under Title 30 in the context of terminating parental rights. G.P.B., Jr., 161 N.J. at 396.
As the Court explained in G.P.B., Jr., N.J.S.A. 9:3-46, up until 1994, "simply stated that the rights of a parent could not be terminated unless the court found that the parent 'failed to perform the regular and expected parental functions of care and support of the child, [including] maintenance of an emotional relationship.'" G.P.B., Jr., 161 N.J. at 405. Since 1994, the Legislature has modified its approach from "favor[ing] the interests of the biological parent . . . to emphasiz[ing] the needs of the child." Ibid. (citing L. 1993, c. 346, sec. 9 (eff. April 27, 1994)). Under that modified approach, the concept of "affirmatively assum[ing] the duties encompassed by the role of being a parent" has taken on a starkly broader and more elaborate meaning under the Title 9 statute. This baseline concept of parenting goes beyond merely the "maintenance of an emotional relationship" between a parent and a child. Id. at 405-06; 410-12.
As the Court also detailed in G.P.B., Jr., further amendments to the statute in 1998 served "to underscore the significance of the affirmative assumption of parental duties. . . . the amendment reflects decreasing legislative tolerance for biological parents who . . . do not assume the responsibilities of parenthood." Id. at 408 (emphasis added).
The present case, in which Rebecca has not voluntarily placed her child for adoption and objects to the Martins' adoption complaint, is governed by N.J.S.A. 9:3-46(a). The relevant portion of the statute reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial