NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,  Plaintiff-Respondent,
P.P. and J.E.H., Defendants-Appellants, IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.A.P., a minor.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 7, 2013
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FG-08-30-11.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant P.P. (Alan I. Smith, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant J.E.H. (Carol A. Weil, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary A. Hurley, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Melissa R. Vance, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).
Before Judges Ashrafi, St. John and Leone.
Defendant-father P.P. and defendant-mother J.E.H. appeal from an August 31, 2012 judgment of the Family Part terminating their parental rights to their son A.A.P. The child is now five years old and has lived almost his entire life with foster parents who have provided a stable, nurturing home and wish to adopt him. Addressing defendants' appeals together, we affirm the judgment.
Each defendant also has three older children with one or more other partners. None of their other children are in their custody. Defendant-father is a convicted sex offender, subject to Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2 to -5, and parole supervision for life, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. He was arrested three times between 1995 and 2002, when he was in his twenties, for having sexual relationships with girls who were twelve through fifteen years old. He was convicted of sex offenses and sentenced to prison.
Defendant-mother has known him from the time she was twelve years old. She refuses to terminate her relationship with him despite the risk that he presents to her children, and she cannot be trusted to supervise his contacts with children because she minimizes his sex offenses and is submissive to his dominant personality. Although DYFS at first attempted to establish an arrangement by which the child could be reunited with defendants, provided that adequate supervision of defendant-father could be ensured, the last straw was when he was arrested once again in June 2010 and charged with possession of and trading in internet child pornography. He pleaded guilty to a child pornography charge and is now serving another prison sentence. The new offense still did not cause defendant-mother to end her relationship with him. Her refusal to acknowledge the risk to children from his criminal sexual misconduct has made it impossible to trust her with responsibility for the care and protection of a child.
In a previous appeal, we considered and rejected defendants' contention that the Family Part erred in approving a permanency plan for termination of their parental rights. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. J.H. and P.P., Nos. A-2101-10, A-3271-10 (App. Div. March 5, 2012). Our prior opinion included a detailed recitation of the relevant facts and procedural history up to the time of that appeal. Id. at 2-16. We adopt that recitation for purposes of this decision.
While the prior appeal was pending, the Family Part held a guardianship trial over fifteen days from September 2011 to May 2012. Family Part Judge Mary K. White carefully reviewed the evidence and issued a comprehensive eighty-nine page written opinion on August 31, 2012. We have found no basis to disagree with any of the judge's detailed findings of fact and clear conclusions of law. We now affirm the judgment terminating defendants' parental rights for the reasons stated in Judge White's written ...