June 12, 2012
KINSHIP MATTER OF T.H.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Mercer County, Docket No. FL-11-5-10.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 29, 2012
Before Judges Grall and Skillman.
In September 2009, the Family Part entered a judgment placing T.H. under the Kinship Legal Guardianship of T.D.
N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-1 to -7. Prior to the entry of judgment, T.H.'s mother had given temporary custody of the child to T.D. and the man with whom she was living at the time, K.B. When the judgment of Kinship Legal Guardianship was entered, T.D. and K.B. were still living together. They later separated, and in March 2011 K.B. moved to vacate the judgment.
In support of his initial application to vacate, K.B. argued that he had no notice or knowledge of the Kinship Legal Guardianship proceeding. On April 8, 2011, the judge heard the motion and took testimony from K.B. and T.D. The judge credited T.D.'s assertion that K.B. was fully aware of the Kinship Legal Guardianship proceeding and, in fact, was in the hallway of the courthouse during that proceeding. Consequently, the judge denied K.B.'s motion to vacate the judgment. K.B. then filed an untimely motion for reconsideration, which the judge also denied.
K.B. appeals. He asserts that the court's decision was not supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and entered in violation of his right to procedural due process. We have considered the arguments in light of the record and determined that they lack sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The judge's determination is based on findings of fact that are adequately supported by evidence, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), and we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the judge in his oral decisions of April 8 and June 24, 2011.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.