N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. R.V.
| Decision Date | 20 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1233-21 |
| Parties | NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. R.V. (deceased), Defendant, and M.G., Defendant-Appellant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF H.G., a minor. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — 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.
Submitted November 28, 2022
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No FG-08-0029-21.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Isabela Castellanos, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sookie Bae, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Wesley Hanna, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Before Judges Mawla, Smith, and Marczyk.
Defendant M.G. appeals from the Family Part's December 6, 2021 judgment terminating his parental rights to his biological son Henry.[1] On appeal, M.G. argues the trial court erred in finding the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) had proven prongs two and four of the statutory best-interests-of-the-child test, N.J.S.A 30:4C-15.1(a), by clear and convincing evidence, because the Division failed to present expert testimony. M.G. further asserts the trial court erred by failing to consider the change in New Jersey's child welfare public policy pursuant to the amendments to the Kinship Legal Guardianship Act (KLG), N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-1 to -7, and that the trial court's erroneous decision resulted from the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Division and Henry's law guardian contend the judgment is supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record and that Henry's ineffective-assistance argument is without merit. Having considered the arguments in light of the record and applicable legal standards, we affirm.
Henry was born in November 2018 to M.G. and defendant R.V.[2] Henry had two maternal half-sisters, G.V. and L.L. G.V. was born with cerebral palsy, and L.L. had developmental delays. As discussed in more detail below, Henry was removed from M.G.'s home on April 26, 2019, when he was five months old due to extremely poor living conditions. He lived with his resource parents from that time up until the trial court's order terminating M.G.'s parental rights in December 2021.
On April 30, 2018, while pregnant with Henry, the Division investigated a referral alleging R.V. had several unattended animals in her home, causing the conditions of the home to be unsanitary, and threatening the health of G.V. and L.L.[3] The investigation revealed eleven dogs,[4] several cats, four pregnant rats, six rabbits, and two ferrets in the home. The Division worker observed feces on the floor, overflowing garbage, and piles of dirty dishes. There was a strong smell of feces and ammonia. Additionally, there were stacks of empty pizza boxes blocking the walkways and feces-stained toilets. The local health department indicated the family could only keep four animals. Because the family subsequently complied with the recommendations, the Division closed its case.
On August 29, 2018, police alerted the Division regarding unsanitary conditions in R.V.'s residence where Animal Control was investigating allegations of animal neglect. Animal Control workers had observed two children, G.V. and L.L., sitting amongst forty bags of garbage in unclean clothes. This was R.V. and M.G.'s new residence, and they had already accumulated three dogs, five cats, a rabbit, and a ferret. R.V. and M.G. signed an agreement to keep the home clean and organized. A follow-up inspection revealed the property's condition had improved, and the Division closed its file on October 26, 2018.
While investigating allegations of abuse[5] between February and April 2019, the Division found R.V. and M.G.'s home was poorly kept and unsanitary, with a strong odor of animal urine in the home and dog feces on the floor. On April 11, 2019, the Division referred the family to Family Protective Services (FPS) to assist in obtaining public benefits, establishing a routine for cleaning the house, and improving parenting skills. FPS provided eight sessions, but the children remained unbathed, there was dog feces in the bedrooms, an overflowing litter box, children eating without utensils, and throwing their food on the ground. By April 24, 2019, FPS advised the Division the home's condition was unacceptable.
Division workers inspected the home on April 26, 2021, and found the home to be "deplorable" with many of the recurring issues discussed above. The workers saw feces on the floor in the basement and in a bedroom. The workers also observed a cat inside a kennel in the bathtub. Because the home environment had reached an unsafe level, and the extensive efforts to assist the family in remediating the conditions failed, the Division determined removal was necessary. Henry and the two girls were placed in three separate resource homes.
On April 30, 2019, the Division filed a complaint against M.G. and R.V. seeking custody, care, and supervision of Henry[6] and L.L. The court affirmed the Division's Dodd[7] removal that took place on April 26, 2019, and granted the Division's request for care, custody, and supervision. At the May 29, 2019 return on the order to show cause, the court continued Henry's resource placement.
M.G. underwent a psychological exam with Dr. Perez-Rivera on July 31, 2019. He was found to be defensive and uncooperative. He further refused to answer questions about parenting because many of the questions were directed to the girls in the home and his wife did the parenting for them. He has never been in a parenting role except for Henry. He also denied the family home was dirty. Dr. Perez-Rivera determined significant risk factors existed that could interfere with M.G.'s safe and effective parenting. She recommended M.G. undergo an outpatient program, parenting classes, random drug tests, psychotherapy, a psychiatric evaluation, and supervised visitation. She recommended the Division assist him in finding employment and housing, and schedule a re-evaluation upon completion of services.
M.G. initially attended supervised visitation sessions with Henry on a fairly regular basis, but over time it was inconsistent. Henry was observed enjoying himself during many of the visits. However, M.G. stopped attending visits in mid-October 2021 for approximately six weeks prior to the guardianship trial.
M.G. did not successfully complete his parenting classes. The Division arranged for a parenting coach from the RENU program.[8] He only participated in one session, and RENU discharged M.G. from the program, stating he was "resistant to feedback" and uncooperative. M.G. was referred to another parenting service, but only attended one session and was terminated for noncompliance. A third attempt at parenting classes was cut short because the Division changed its goal to adoption.
On August 19, 2020, M.G. stipulated to a neglect finding pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(2) and (4) based on the Division's findings concerning Henry's home. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence M.G.'s admissions were "sufficient for a finding of abuse or neglect" and ordered his name be placed on the Child Abuse Registry. The same day, the court held a second permanency hearing, wherein a three-month extension was granted.
The Division explored several family members for possible placement. M.G.'s parents initially expressed an interest but were unresponsive to multiple attempts by the Division to inspect their home. The Division also learned at one point M.G. had moved back in with his parents, rendering the home inappropriate for placement. Moreover, the family did not initially provide contact information for M.G.'s brother, C.G., who lived at the home. The Division needed to conduct a background check on C.G. and obtain his contact information. However, C.G. failed to respond to several attempts by the Division to speak with him. M.G.'s parents were eventually sent a rule-out letter and were advised of the process to be reconsidered. There is no record they ever attempted to avail themselves of that process. The Division also considered M.G.'s new girlfriend's mother, but she declined. R.V.'s relatives were not interested in taking Henry. The Division ruled out a maternal uncle who was unwilling to care for Henry. Additionally, Henry's maternal grandmother was ruled out due to dementia.
On January 21, 2021, the court held a compliance review. M.G. was ordered to attend a rescheduled psychiatric evaluation, submit to random drug screens, attend counseling, attend parenting classes, obtain stable housing, and comply with supervised visitation. The court further entered a fourth permanency order, granting the Division's request to change the goal to a termination of parental rights (TPR) for M.G. On February 25, 2021, the Division filed a complaint seeking termination of M.G.'s parental rights and guardianship of Henry.
M.G. never obtained stable housing or consistent employment during the litigation. M.G. did not complete individual counseling and parenting classes. M.G. also failed to attend court-ordered psychological and bonding evaluations. He also did not attend the evaluation with his own expert.
The guardianship trial took place on December 6, 2021...
To continue reading
Request your trial