V.L. v. T.T.L. New Jersey

 

2110832.

 

Decided: March 01, 2013

 

V.L. (“the mother”) appeals from a judgment of the Lawrence Circuit Court (“the circuit court”) declining to modify custody of her children, L.M.L. and M.L.L. (“the children”).

Procedural History

On October 23, 2009, T.T.L., the children's former stepfather, filed in the Lawrence Juvenile Court (“the juvenile court”) separate petitions alleging that L.M.L. (case no. JU–09–152.01) and M.L.L. (case no. JU–09–153.01) were dependent and requesting custody of the children. In both petitions, he specifically alleged the following facts in support of his allegations that the children were dependent:

“The child's mother has a history of alcohol and drug abuse. The child's mother has maintained no steady employment. The child has resided in numerous locations while in the custody of her mother. The child's mother has had numerous arrests and convictions. The child's mother withdrew herself from a rehab[ilitation] center in mid-May, 2009, after two (2) months of treatment, in a program which was designed to last for a period of eight (8) months. The Lawrence County DHR [Department of Human Resources] has investigated the home of the child's mother, and she gave DHR legal permission to take custody of the said child, if they elected to do so. The child's mother lives with a man to whom she is not married. The child's mother has no driver's license. The child's mother has a history of domestic violence. The child's mother maintains a lifestyle which is detrimental to the welfare of the said minor child.”

That same day, the juvenile court entered separate ex parte orders awarding T.T.L. pendente lite custody of the children. After a pendente lite hearing, the juvenile court entered separate orders on November 12, 2009, by agreement of the parties, continuing custody of the children with T.T.L. After a final hearing, the juvenile court entered judgments on May 27, 2010, awarding custody of the children to T.T.L. and awarding the mother standard visitation.1 In those judgments, the juvenile court specifically stated, in pertinent part: