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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1399-18T3
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
A.L.,
Defendant-Appellant/
Cross-Respondent,
and
S.B.,
Defendant.
________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF AU.L., a Minor,
Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
________________________________
Submitted October 22, 2019 – Decided October 28, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County,
Docket No. FN-12-0172-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant/cross-respondent (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel; Andrew Robert
Burroughs, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for respondent/cross-appellant (Noel Christian
Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel
and on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Michael A. Thompson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant A.L. gave birth to Au.L. on December 4, 2016. Two months
before the child's birth, defendant acknowledged to plaintiff Division of Child
Protection and Permanency that she was an addict, using as many as five bags
of heroin daily. A month later, defendant tested positive for cocaine and heroin.
And a week before the child's birth she again tested positive for cocaine. The
Division commenced this Title Nine action and, after the completion of
discovery, the trial court conducted a one-day hearing in May 2017. The trial
judge issued a written decision, concluding that defendant abused or neglected
A-1399-18T3
2
the child by using illicit drugs and substances throughout the pregnancy and that
this caused the child to suffer withdrawal symptoms soon after birth.
Once the Title Nine litigation was terminated in October 2018, defendant
appealed, arguing the evidence that defendant's drug use caused the child's
neonatal withdrawal syndrome was "at best in equipoise." She contends as well
that the judge erred in denying her attorney's request to keep the record open for
an additional trial day so that she might present expert witness testimony. The
Law Guardian cross-appeals and presents arguments similar to defendant's. We
find insufficient merit in defendant's and the Law Guardian's arguments to
warrant further discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm
substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Bruce J. Kaplan in his
comprehensive and well-reasoned written opinion.
We would add only that the judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing
to allow defendant additional time to present expert testimony. The record
establishes that defendant was represented by counsel in January 2017; at that
time, the judge: established dates for the exchange of discovery; provided a
deadline for the submission of expert reports; and fixed a trial date of May 12,
2017. It was not until two days before this trial date that defense counsel
requested the opportunity to provide an expert report and to elicit testimony
A-1399-18T3
3
from that expert at a later date. Considering that defendant was aware of the
trial date for five months – more than sufficient time to secure the services of an
expert – and considering defendant's inability to state with certainty when
requesting an adjournment that a favorable report from an expert could be
obtained, the judge acted within his discretion in denying defendant's request
for an adjournment.
Affirmed.
A-1399-18T3
4