RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1658-19T2 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Y.O.-E., Defendant-Appellant, and R.E., Defendant. __________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JC.E., a minor. __________________________ Argued November 18, 2020 – Decided December 16, 2020 Before Judges Whipple, Rose, and Firko. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FG-20-0013-19. Clara S. Licata, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Clara S. Licata, on the briefs). Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Jane C. Schuster, of counsel; Julie B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Louise M. Cho, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for minor (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Louise M. Cho, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Y.O.-E. (Yolanda) appeals from a December 16, 2019 judgment of guardianship terminating her parental rights to her biological child, JC.E. (Jonathan).1 On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in finding the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) had met its burden by clear and convincing evidence for each Title-30 prong. Defendant asserts the Division 1 For the sake of anonymity and ease of reference, we utilize the pseudonyms from defendant's brief to protect the parties and the child. See R. 1:38-3(d)(13). A-1658-19T2 2 neglected its duties to her while she herself was in Division custody. Additionally, defendant contends that the Division should have provided further support for her during her time trying to improve her situation so she could parent Jonathan. Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: POINT I. NO DEFERENCE IS OWED TO TRIAL COURT LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OR FACT FINDINGS UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL AND CREDIBLE AND THAT IS ALSO CLEAR AND CONVINCING. POINT II. [DIVISION]'S FAILURE TO ASSIST [YOLANDA] IN BECOMING DOCUMENTED WHILE AN UNDOCUMENTED CHILD IN [DIVISION]'S CUSTODY IN THE 1990'S AND EARLY 2000'S, WHICH LED TO INSTABILITY IN HER MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT, EMPLOYMENT, AND RESIDENCE, SHOULD BAR [DIVISION] AND A COURT FROM RELYING ON SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS TO [JONATHAN]. (Not Raised Below). POINT III. [DIVISION] DID NOT PROVE THAT [JONATHAN]'S SAFETY HAS BEEN OR WILL BE ENDANGERED BY CONTINUING THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP WHEN THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT [JONATHAN] HAS BEEN HARMED OR EXPOSED TO RISK OF HARM IN A-1658-19T2 3 THE THREE MONTHS HE WAS IN [YOLANDA]'S CARE. POINT IV. [DIVISION] DID NOT PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT [YOLANDA] WAS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO ELIMINATE THE ALLEGED RISK ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals