RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-1314-18T3 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Respondent, v. D.S., Defendant-Respondent. _____________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF X.S., a Minor, and D'A.S., a Minor, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. _____________________________ Argued telephonically June 24, 2020 – Decided August 11, 2020 Before Judges Accurso and DeAlmeida. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket No. FG-20-0026-18. Sara M. Gregory, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Donna Sue Arons and Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel; Elizabeth Erb Cashin, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs). Todd S. Wilson, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant D'A.S. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Todd S. Wilson, on the briefs). Ted Gary Mitchell, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent D.S. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Ted Gary Mitchell, of counsel and on the brief). Nancy P. Fratz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for minor X.S. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; Nancy P. Fratz, on the brief). PER CURIAM The Division of Child Protection and Permanency and the Law Guardian for sixteen-year-old David1 appeal from a November 1, 2018 order terminating this guardianship litigation based on the trial judge's decision that the Division 1 The boys' names and that of the resource parent are fictitious. We employ pseudonyms to protect their privacy. See R. 1:38-3(d)(12). A-1314-18T3 2 failed to prove the second and fourth prongs of the best interests standard, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), at trial. The Law Guardian for David's twin brother, Samuel, although urging termination at trial, now sides with the boys' father, defendant D.S., urging that we affirm. Because we are convinced by our review of the record that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal standard in analyzing the second and fourth statutory prongs, frustrating the paramount goal of permanency, and erroneously excluded the opinion of the Division's testifying psychologist, we vacate the order and remand for expedited proceedings to bring this case to conclusion. The issue in this appeal is the judge's interpretation of the second and fourth prongs of the best interests standard applied to the facts. The facts themselves are almost entirely undisputed. Neither defendant nor the Law Guardians presented any evidence at trial, and the judge found the Division's witnesses competent and credible, with the exception of his rejection of Dr. Dyer's opinion on the boys' need for permanency, which is at the center of the case. Defendant did not testify and absented himself for part of the trial. Here are the essential facts. The boys lost ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals