RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2478-20 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. L.S.-S., Defendant-Appellant, and M.M. and V.G., Defendants. _________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP of A.M. and N.M., minors. _________________________ Submitted July 19, 2022 – Decided August 3, 2022 Before Judges Gilson and Mayer. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, Docket No. FG-16-0017-20. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Catherine Reid, Designated Counsel, on the briefs). Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Amy Melissa Young, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Julie Goldstein, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant L.S.-S.1 (Lilly) appeals from an April 16, 2021 judgment of guardianship after a trial terminating parental rights to her daughters, A.M. (Anna), born in October 2011, and N.M. (Nina), born in July 2009.2 On appeal, Lilly challenges the Family judge's determination that the New Jersey Division 1 We use initials and pseudonyms to protect the family's identity. R. 1:38- 3(d)(12) and N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(a). 2 Anna's biological father, V.G., last known to reside in Florida, received notice of the proceedings but appeared only once during the trial. Nina's biological father, M.M., could not be located despite numerous attempts to find him as detailed in the Division's affidavit of diligent inquiry. Neither father is participating in this appeal. A-2478-20 2 of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) satisfied the second, third, and fourth prongs of the best interests of the child test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). She also contends the judge's decision "is tainted by prejudice and unfairness" as a result of proceeding virtually on the last day of trial without Lilly's consent. We disagree and affirm. I. We summarize the evidence adduced during the five days of trial testimony, including voluminous documents admitted by the judge.3 The Division presented testimony from Maritza Jolly, a permanency caseworker, Jessica Jimenez, an adoption caseworker, and the resource parent, P.P. (Pippa).4 Dr. Eric Kirschner, a licensed psychologist, also testified for the Division. The Law Guardian offered the testimony of Nina and Dr. Rachel Jewelewicz Nelson, a licensed psychologist. Lilly did not testify and called no witnesses. 3 Trial with live witness testimony proceeded on February 24, 25, 28, and March 10, 2020. Due to the pandemic and cessation of in-person trials, the judge postponed closing arguments originally scheduled for March 25, 2020. 4 Pippa is Lilly's aunt. A-2478-20 3 The Division first became involved with the family in 2009. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals