December 10, 2009
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
T.R., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND D.N., DEFENDANT.
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF D.N. AND D.N., MINORS.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-48-08.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted December 2, 2009
Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa.
Defendant T.R. (defendant) has given birth to sixteen children. This appeal concerns two of those children. The record reveals that defendant voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to five children in 1999. In May 2000, her parental rights to four other children were terminated following a six-day trial; we affirmed that judgment by way of an unpublished opinion. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.R., No. A-5280-00T4 (App. Div. November 26, 2001). In December 2004, defendant's parental rights to three other children were terminated following a four-day trial; we affirmed. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.R., No. A- 2613-04T4 (App. Div. August 17, 2005), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 392 (2005). And, in January 2006, defendant's parental rights to her thirteenth child was terminated at the conclusion of a one-day trial; we affirmed that judgment as well. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.R., No. A-5032-05T4 (App. Div. March 2, 2007).
This appeal concerns the termination of defendant's parental rights to her fourteenth and fifteenth children, who were born on February 9, 2006 and September 8, 2007, respectively.*fn1 The judge presided over a four-day trial, during which the Division of Youth and Family Services called five witnesses -- three caseworkers, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Defendant testified on her own behalf and called four other witnesses, including a psychologist and a psychiatrist. The judge rendered a lengthy and thorough oral decision, concluding that defendant's parental rights should be terminated.*fn2
Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the judge's findings that the Division met, by clear and convincing evidence, all four prongs of the statutory test set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1a. We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).