Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.W.

August 29, 2007

DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
D.W. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF T.B., MINOR.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, FG-01-27-06.

Per curiam.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted August 21, 2007

Before Judges Lisa and Holston, Jr.

D.W. appeals from a judgment of guardianship terminating his parental rights to his daughter, T.B., who was born on August 2, 2004.*fn1 D.W. argues on appeal that the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS or Division) failed to present clear and convincing evidence to satisfy its burden of establishing all four prongs of the best interests of the child test. D.W. also argues that termination of his parental rights was improperly based solely on issues regarding a sibling and that the termination, under the circumstances of this case, without a fair and adequate consideration of less severe relief, was punitive and unreasonable.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial judge's findings are well supported by the evidence, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), and that D.W.'s appeal arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Baker in his thorough and well reasoned written decision of August 31, 2006. We add this brief factual recitation, summary of the judge's findings, and controlling legal principles.

Prior to T.B.'s birth, D.W. and E.B. had a son, D.W., Jr. On January 1, 2003, when D.W., Jr. was five months old, D.W. shook him and slapped him violently, causing catastrophic injuries which have left the child legally blind, unable to walk or crawl, unable to feed himself or control his bowel movements, and in a semi-vegetative state requiring total care for the remainder of his life. As a result of that incident, D.W. was criminally charged and, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to second-degree endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to five-years imprisonment. Investigation revealed that D.W. had subjected D.W., Jr. to a pattern of physical abuse and, while in the care of D.W. and E.B., D.W., Jr. was malnourished and otherwise neglected.

It was not until October 2004, several months after T.B.'s birth, that D.W. was arrested for the incident involving D.W., Jr. E.B. was also arrested. D.W. was incarcerated at that time. He later pled guilty and was pending sentencing at the time of the trial of this termination case, which took place on May 31, June 1 and June 8, 2006. D.W. was sentenced on June 30, 2006 to five years imprisonment in accordance with the recommendation in the plea agreement. At the time of trial, the date on which he would be released was not clearly established. We have been advised that he was ultimately paroled on January 18, 2007.

When D.W. and E.B. were arrested, T.B. stayed temporarily with a relative. She was hospitalized in December 2004 as a result of a reflux condition. She was classified as medically fragile and placed in a special needs foster home. She was placed with her current foster parents in April 2006. She is doing very well in that environment, described by her caseworker as a loving environment. The foster family is providing for T.B.'s medical needs. Her foster parents wish to adopt her.

D.W. has not seen or had any contact with T.B. since she was three months old. While incarcerated, he made no efforts to communicate with her or establish any contact. DYFS was unable to provide services to D.W. while he was incarcerated. DYFS did, however, arrange for a psychological evaluation, which was conducted by Dr. Roger Barr on March 9, 2006. Dr. Barr diagnosed D.W. with paranoid suspicion, delusional thinking, hyper-vigilance and anxiety, and concluded that each of these conditions posed a risk to T.B. Dr. Barr opined that D.W.'s mental illness carried with it a high probability that he would lose behavioral control and that he was not capable of parenting a child. At best, if D.W. were cooperative and successfully underwent an intensive course of therapy, Dr. Barr estimated that it would take years, perhaps three to five years, before there would be any prospect of D.W. being capable of parenting a child. Further, before his incarceration, D.W. was homeless and unemployed. His circumstances presented no prospects of any stable living arrangements or ability to provide a safe and secure environment for himself or a child.

The Division made extensive efforts to place T.B. with relatives of either of her parents. None of the relatives contacted were suitable. The Division also attempted to locate other relatives, for whom incomplete information was provided.

Dr. Barr did not conduct a bonding evaluation between T.B. and D.W. or between T.B. and her foster parents. In D.W.'s case, Dr. Barr explained that such an evaluation would be completely meaningless because there was absolutely no relationship between father and daughter and D.W. would be a complete stranger to his daughter if they were placed in the same room together. With respect to the foster parents, a bonding evaluation would have been premature because T.B. had been with her foster family for less than two months when the trial began. In Dr. Barr's opinion there would be no harm whatsoever to T.B. by terminating her parental relationship with D.W., and T.B.'s best interests would be served by allowing adoption by loving foster parents which would provide permanency and stability for her. Also, arrangements were made by which T.B. was having regular contact with her biological siblings, and it was expected that those contacts would continue in the future.

At trial, Dr. Barr and the DYFS caseworker were the only witnesses. D.W. was present at trial and represented, but he did not testify or call any witnesses. Numerous records and documents were placed in evidence and formed part of the record upon which the decision was made. At the conclusion of trial, Judge Baker reserved decision, after which he issued his written decision. The judge reviewed in detail and critically analyzed the evidence. He made credibility findings, finding both Dr. Barr and the caseworker ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.