On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Salem County, FG-16-06 and FG-17-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 18, 2007
Before Judges Skillman and Winkelstein.
Defendant R.H. Jr. is the father of a daughter, A.H., born on March 3, 2003, a son, R.H. III, born on January 1, 2004, and another son, C.H., born on August 3, 2005. Defendant R.G.H. is the mother of A.H. and R.H. III. C.H.'s mother surrendered her parental rights to C.H. on August 2, 2006, and is not a party to these proceedings.
Following a bench trial on July 31, 2006, August 1, 2006, and October 17, 2006, Judge Vincent D. Segal terminated defendants' parental rights to the children. The court memorialized its decision in an October 18, 2006 order. On appeal from that order, defendants claim that the trial court's findings of fact were not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.
We have carefully reviewed the record, in light of the four-prong "best interests" test enunciated in N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 604-11 (1986), and as subsequently codified in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a(1)-(4), and conclude that defendants' contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11- 3(e)(1)(A), (E). Judge Segal's opinion contains findings of fact that are fully supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). The judge correctly applied the legal standards set forth in A.W. and N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Segal in his comprehensive oral opinion.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...