NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. K.F.-B., Defendant-Appellant, and T.P., Defendant. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.P., a minor.
DOCKET NO. A-2969-22
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Decided April 14, 2025
Argued April 3, 2025; Before Judges Natali, Walcott-Henderson, and Vinci.
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.
Meghan K. Gulczynski, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney; Meghan K. Gulczynski, of counsel and on the briefs).
Mary L. Harpster, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, on the brief).
Julie E. Goldstein, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for minor J.P. (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Julie E. Goldstein, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant K.F.-B.1 is the biological parent of J.P. Defendant appeals from the court‘s May 12, 2023 order terminating her parental rights to her daughter J.P. She contends the court erred in finding that it was in her daughter‘s best interests to be adopted by her paternal aunt and uncle, M.H. and R.H., with
Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied the evidence in favor of the guardianship petition supports the court‘s decision to terminate defendant‘s parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the court in its thorough oral decision rendered on April 26 and May 12, 2023.
We will not recite in detail the history of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency‘s (Division) interactions with defendant and J.P. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the court‘s decision.
The guardianship petition was tried before the court on various dates between September 13, 2022, and January 19, 2023. The Division presented overwhelming evidence that established, by clear and convincing evidence, all four statutory prongs outlined in
“We accord deference to factfindings of the family court because it has the superior ability to gauge the credibility of the witnesses who testify before it and because it possesses special expertise in matters related to the family.” F.M., 211 N.J. at 448. This enhanced deference is particularly appropriate where the court‘s findings are founded upon the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. H.B., 375 N.J. Super. 148, 172 (App. Div. 2005) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).
Viewed through this prism, we affirm the court‘s decision to terminate defendant‘s parental rights. As we have noted, we do so for the cogent reasons extensively set forth in the court‘s oral decision. We add additional comments by way of amplification.
The record clearly supports the judge‘s findings on prongs one and two of the statutory criteria.
Moreover, the record reflects that, notwithstanding years of therapy with multiple professionals, defendant had not gained any insight into the harmfulness of her behavior. Rather, despite the amelioration of her anxiety, and despite all evidence to the contrary, she continued to harbor the belief that T.P. had abused J.P. Because of this, defendant still posed a risk of harm to J.P., and none of the experts in this case, save one whom the court justifiably deemed incredible, recommended reunification at this time or in the foreseeable future.
The record also does not bear out defendant‘s claim that J.P.‘s documented stress and anxiety actually arose, not from defendant‘s actions, but from her separation from defendant. Numerous professionals linked J.P.‘s mental health struggles to defendant‘s coercive actions and determined that J.P. did not see defendant as her protector. J.P. believed she had gotten both of her parents in trouble, blamed herself for the present situation, and, as one testifying expert put it, continued to “suffer inwardly.” Nonetheless, J.P. has thrived, physically and mentally, since being placed with her paternal aunt and uncle.
Additionally, contrary to defendant‘s representations, her refusal to accept J.P.‘s retraction of the sexual abuse allegations did not reflect a prioritization of
Further, while defendant‘s apparently immutable personal beliefs and thoughts regarding T.P. may not have informed her more recent behavior, this was only because her visitation was largely supervised, and she knew it was in her interests to refrain from acting on her beliefs when faced with the possible termination of her parental rights. While defendant insisted at trial that she would allow J.P. to visit with T.P. if she were reunited with her daughter, she also admitted that she still did not trust T.P. and if any abuse allegations arose in the future, she would not consult the Division but would take J.P. and move away. As the court noted, the threat to J.P.‘s cherished bond with T.P. could not be clearer.
Finally, the Division did not harm J.P. by failing to reunite her with defendant; rather, it was defendant‘s inability or unwillingness to overcome her
Turning to prong three,
Additionally, although defendant blames the Division for failing to foster a relationship between her and M.H. such that kinship legal guardianship (KLG) might have been more feasible, defendant ignores: (1) M.H. had every reason to be leery of defendant given the baseless accusations against her brother, T.P.; (2) M.H. had to deal with the emotional repercussions of defendant‘s actions
Further, while defendant maintains the court should not have relied solely on M.H.‘s preference for adoption in terminating her parental rights, this is not what occurred. Defendant wanted KLG because it served her interests. The court determined that adoption was the better path for J.P. because: (1) J.P. had spent years with and wanted to stay with her resource family; (2) J.P. saw her resource parents as her psychological parents; (3) the resource parents wanted to adopt her; (4) remaining with the resource family allowed J.P. to see both her parents; (5) J.P. needed to move on with her life without Division involvement to have a sense of security and permanency; and (6) with KLG, there was a risk that defendant would file motions and perpetuate litigation.
As to prong four,
Children like J.P. are entitled to a permanent, safe, and secure home. We acknowledge “the need for permanency of placements by placing limits on the time for a birth parent to correct conditions in anticipation of reuniting with the child.” N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. C.S., 367 N.J. Super. 76, 111 (App. Div. 2004). As public policy increasingly focuses on a child‘s need for permanency, “[t]he emphasis has shifted from protracted efforts for reunification with a birth parent to an expeditious, permanent placement to promote the child‘s well-being.” Ibid. That is because “[a] child cannot be held prisoner of the rights of others, even those of his or her parents. Children have their own rights, including the right to a permanent, safe and stable placement.” Ibid.
The question then is “whether the parent can become fit in time to meet the needs of the children.” N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 375 N.J. Super. 235, 263 (App. Div. 2005); see also P.P., 180 N.J. at 512 (indicating that even if a parent is trying to change, a child cannot wait indefinitely). After carefully considering the evidence, the court reasonably determined that
To the extent we have not expressly addressed any issues raised by defendant, it is because they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
M.C. Harley
Clerk of the Appellate Division