N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. E.W. (In re Guardianship B.W.)
| Decision Date | 12 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-3241-16T2 |
| Parties | NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. E.W., Defendant-Appellant, and R.A., Defendant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF B.W., a Minor. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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.
Before Judges Yannotti, Mawla and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FG-09-0101-17.
Mary Potter, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; T. Gary Mitchell, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs; Joel Marasco, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Mary Potter, on the briefs).
Julie B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Julie B. Colonna, on the brief).
Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for minor (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Noel C. Devlin and M. Alexis Pollock, of counsel and on the brief).
Defendant E.W. appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter B.W. We affirm.
The following facts are taken from the trial record. The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division or DCPP) first became involved with E.W. when she was a minor. At seventeen years old, E.W. began using phencyclidine (PCP), and despite the Division's repeated attempts to assist her, E.W. has never addressed her addiction. From 2005 to 2015, E.W. gave birth to six children, the first when she was nineteen years old. Five of her children tested positive for PCP at birth. E.W.'s first two children are in the care of her sister following entry of a judgment of kinship legal guardianship. E.W.'s parental rights to her remaining four children, including B.W., the child at issuein this appeal, were involuntarily terminated in judicial proceedings initiated by DCPP. During the process of removal of E.W.'s children, the Division repeatedly referred her to substance abuse assessments and treatment programs. She failed to comply with all Division recommendations and treatment referrals. E.W. also experienced periods of psychiatric hospitalization, is homeless, unemployed, and involved in a physically abusive relationship.
B.W. was born in September 2015. She tested positive for PCP at birth, and in the days following, developed withdrawal symptoms including shaking, vomiting, sneezing, and a poor appetite. The child was hospitalized in the intensive care unit for three days. E.W. also tested positive for PCP at B.W.'s birth. Hospital personnel reported the positive test results to DCPP. In addition, DCPP was informed that E.W. had reported to the hospital in August 2015, shortly before B.W.'s birth, believing she was in labor. E.W. tested positive for PCP at that time.
A Division worker went to the hospital to interview E.W. the day after the referral. E.W. was hostile and threatened to punch a hospital social worker for contacting the Division. She denied PCP use, claiming that she tested positive for the drug because she had been around people smoking PCP, but was not using itherself. When confronted with the August 2015 test results, E.W. could not explain why she was positive for PCP at that time.
E.W. denied that she had mental health issues. She claimed that her psychiatric hospitalizations were due to bad reactions to PCP and not mental illness. She agreed, however, to attend the Mommy and Me Program, and other outpatient services.
E.W. identified R.A. as the father of B.W. E.W. and R.A. had an approximately seven-year relationship with multiple episodes of domestic violence. E.W. obtained three temporary restraining orders against R.A., none of which she pursued to final disposition. E.W. alleged that R.A. fractured her ribs and "busted" her lip. E.W. stated that she was unemployed, survives on monthly disability benefits, and was living on the couch of a relative. She acknowledged having been convicted of aggravated assault, and having served a one-year sentence for that offense.
On September 18, 2015, the Division effectuated a Dodd removal of B.W. from E.W.'s custody.1 E.W. could identify no relative willing to serve as a caregiver to B.W. The Division contacted the caregivers of B.W.'s siblings, who declined to be considered as a placement resource for the child. B.W. was placed with aresource parent, P.J., who is committed to adopting B.W. The removal was based upon E.W.'s substance abuse, mental health issues, history of domestic violence with R.A., and unstable housing. The Division determined that E.W. was unable to provide stability, protection, and nurturance to B.W. After the removal, DCPP provided E.W. with referrals for substance abuse and mental health treatment, including a substance abuse program at Straight and Narrow. E.W. did not participate in these services.
On September 22, 2015, the Division filed a verified complaint in the Chancery Division pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12 against E.W. and R.A. for custody of B.W.2 On the same day, the trial court continued DCPP's custody of B.W., and her placement in P.J.'s resource home. The court found that B.W.'s emergent removal was appropriate, and that it would be contrary to her welfare to return her to E.W.'s care. The court ordered E.W. and R.A. to comply with substance abuse evaluations and treatment and to undergo psychological evaluations. The parents were granted liberal supervised visitation.
In October 2015, E.W. attended a substance abuse assessment. She acknowledged first using PCP when she was seventeen years old, and that at the time of the assessment she was using the drug daily. Although E.W. claimed to have participated in several drug treatment programs, she could not provide any details of her drug treatment history. She was recommended for the clinically managed high-intensity residential substance abuse program at Straight and Narrow. A Division caseworker gave E.W. referral forms for the program five times. E.W. failed to attend the program.
In November 2015, the Division arranged for weekly supervised visits between E.W. and B.W. E.W. was notified by mail of the visitation schedule, but attended only one visit. In addition, E.W. was referred to a substance abuse assessment to identify treatment options. E.W. failed to attend the assessment. She remained unemployed, homeless, and living with friends.
On November 17, 2015, the trial court heard DCPP's motion to be relieved of its obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunite E.W. and B.W. under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-11.3(c) because E.W.'s parental rights to her other children had been terminated. E.W. tested positive for PCP in a test administered on the date of the hearing.
On January 4, 2016, the trial court granted the motion. E.W.'s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 10, 2016.
Despite having been relieved of its statutory obligation to make reasonable efforts at reunification, DCPP continued to provide services to E.W. The Division assisted E.W. with seeking public assistance, referred her to therapeutic visitation through Catholic Charities, and arranged an appointment to have a psychological evaluation with Dr. Karen Wells. Dr. Wells had evaluated E.W. in 2014, during E.W.'s incarceration at the Mercer County jail on an assault charge. The Division gave E.W. bus passes to provide transportation to various services. E.W. failed to attend any of these services or to see Dr. Wells.
In January 2016, E.W. began weekly supervised visits with B.W. at the Urban League. The visits terminated in February after E.W. missed two consecutive visits. The Division referred E.W. for therapeutic supervised visitation, but she failed to contact the Division to initiate those visits. E.W. did not visit B.W. from February 16, 2016 through June 2016.
Prior to a February 4, 2016 court hearing, E.W. claimed that she had not been using drugs and agreed to submit to a urine screen, to comply with a substance abuse assessment, participate in mental health counseling, and undergo a psychological evaluation by Dr. Wells. She later refused to attend the drug screen because her tooth was hurting, and failed to attend several scheduled substance abuse assessment appointments. The Divisiongave E.W. contact information for mental health services at a local hospital. She did not enroll in those services.
Despite being informed of and agreeing to a March 17, 2016 psychological evaluation by Dr. Wells, E.W. failed to attend. She also failed to attend three rescheduled dates for the evaluation. Because E.W. did not participate in an evaluation, Dr. Wells was unable to update the report she completed in September 2014.
On March 31, 2016, the court approved the Division's permanency plan to terminate E.W.'s parental rights, followed by adoption of B.W. by her resource parent. The court found that it was unsafe to return B.W. to E.W. because E.W. failed to complete substance abuse treatment or comply with the services recommended by DCPP. The court determined that the Division provided reasonable efforts to reunite E.W. and B.W., including visitations with the child, exploring relatives for placement of B.W., drug abuse assessment and treatment options, family team meetings, psychological evaluation appointments, and mental health counseling. E.W. failed to take advantage of any of those reunification efforts.
In June 2016, the Division referred E.W. for therapeutic supervised visitation with Catholic Charities. After missing several intake appointments, E.W.'s visits...
To continue reading
Request your trial