On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, FG-20-78-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Wefing and Koblitz.
E.R.D., the biological father of B.S.D., appeals from a final judgment entered on June 19, 2007, terminating his parental rights to B.S.D. and conferring guardianship over the child in favor of the Division of Youth & Family Services (the Division).*fn1
On appeal, in a single point heading, defendant raises the following arguments:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD WOULD BE SERVED BY TERMINATING E.D.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS.
A. THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT B.S.D.'S SAFETY, HEALTH OR DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN OR WILL CONTINUE TO BE ENDANGERED BY HER RELATIONSHIP WITH HER FATHER.
B. THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT E.D. IS UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO ELIMINATE THE HARM FACING HIS CHILD OR IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND STABLE HOME FOR THE CHILD.
C. THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THE DIVISION HAS MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO HELP THE PARENT CORRECT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE CHILD'S PLACEMENT OUTSIDE THE HOME.
D. TERMINATION OF E.D.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS WILL DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD.
Our careful review of the record persuades us that the judgment should be affirmed. We are satisfied that the Honorable Joanne B. Spatola's findings and conclusions are amply supported by the credible evidence in the record and are based upon correct legal principles. Rova ...