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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2977-18T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
A.A.J.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
J.L. and C.C.C.,
Defendants.
_____________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF T.S.M., JR.,
a Minor.
_____________________________
Submitted November 7, 2019 – Decided December 19, 2019
Before Judges Koblitz, Whipple and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
No. FG-07-0124-18.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public Defender,
of counsel; Mark Edward Kleiman, Designated
Counsel, on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Sookie Bae, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Merav Lichtenstein, Deputy Attorney General,
on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (Margo E.K. Hirsch, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant, A.A.J. (Amanda), appeals from the February 21, 2019
judgment in favor of the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and
Permanency (Division) terminating her parental rights to her son, T.S.M., Jr.
(Todd). 1 Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm primarily for the
reasons expressed in the thorough written opinion of Judge Nora J. Grimbergen
issued with the judgment.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
1
For the sake of anonymity, we utilize the pseudonyms from defendant's brief
to protect the parties and the child.
A-2977-18T1
2
POINT 1: THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS WERE
INCOMPLETE AND INADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN A
JUDGMENT TERMINATING AMANDA'S
PARENTAL RIGHTS BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15 AND 30:4C-15.1
A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THAT [THE DIVISION] DEMONSTRATED BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT
THE CHILD'S HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT
HAD BEEN OR WILL CONTINUE TO BE
ENDANGERED BY THE PARENTAL
RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE FIRST PRONG.
B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THAT [THE DIVISION] DEMONSTRATED BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT
AMANDA WAS UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO
ELIMINATE THE HARM FACING THE CHILD
OR IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO PROVIDE
A SAFE AND STABLE HOME FOR THE
[CHILD] AND THE DELAY OF PERMANENT
PLACEMENT WILL ADD TO THE HARM
UNDER THE SECOND PRONG.
C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THAT [THE DIVISION] DEMONSTRATED BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT
TERMINATION OF AMANDA'[S] PARENTAL
RIGHTS WILL NOT DO MORE HARM THAN
GOOD UNDER THE FOURTH PRONG.
1. THE TRIAL COURT'S RELIANCE ON DR.
SINGER'S OPINION WAS ERRONEOUS IN
LIGHT OF [THE DIVISION'S] PLAN TO
PURSUE THE CHILD'S PLACEMENT WITH
HIS MATERNAL RELATIVES AND ITS
A-2977-18T1
3
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ABILITY OF
THOSE RELATIVES TO MITIGATE THE
PURPORTED HARM CAUSED BY
SEVERING THE CHILD'S RELATIONSHIP
TO HIS FOSTER MOTHER.
2. THE TRIAL COURT LACKED
ADEQUATE, SUBSTANTIAL, AND
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO
DETERMINE THAT TERMINATION OF
PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD DO MORE
GOOD THAN HARM IN LIGHT OF [THE
DIVISION'S] PLAN TO PURSUE TODD'S
PLACEMENT WITH HIS MATERNAL
RELATIVES.
D. THE PREMATURE TERMINATION OF
AMANDA'S PARENTAL RIGHTS PREVENTED
THE TRIAL COURT FROM CONSIDERING
KINSHIP LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP AS A
VIABLE ALTERNATIVE UNDER THE THIRD
PRONG.
In October 2014, Amanda gave birth to Todd. Although Amanda listed
T.S.M. (Tim) as Todd's father, a paternity test confirmed Tim was not Todd's
biological parent. 2 Amanda suffers from significant mental health disorders
2
Amanda also named F.B., T.M., J.L., and C.C.C. as potential fathers.
However paternity tests also revealed that neither F.B. nor T.M. were Todd's
biological father. Further, the Division was not able to locate both J.L. and
C.C.C. Default was entered against J.L. on October 25, 2018 and C.C.C. on
February 7, 2019. Default was entered against Todd's biological father,
whomsoever he may be, on July 19, 2018.
A-2977-18T1
4
which have impaired her ability to function as a parent. After Todd's birth the
Division provided services and monitored Amanda's progress.
The Division received a referral alleging that Amanda was smoking
marijuana around Todd, abusing her prescription medications, consuming
Percocet, and engaging in acts of domestic violence. The referral alerted that
Todd was being overdosed with Tylenol, he developed rashes because his diaper
was not being changed, and there was no food in the home. A Division
investigator met with Amanda who informed the investigator that she was being
evicted from her home because she owed three months' rent.
Due to the investigator's concerns about Todd's development, the
investigator suggested the family take Todd to the hospital. As a result of what
the Division worker personally observed in the home and at the hospital, the
Division conducted an emergency removal of Todd and placed him in the home
of a non-relative resource parent where he remained until he was recently placed
with relatives who are committed to adopting him.
The Division filed for custody of one-year-old Todd on November 12,
2015, because of Amanda's mental health, non-compliance with medication, the
family's eviction, Amanda's behavior at the hospital, and Todd's physical
condition. The Division provided Amanda with supervised visitation and
A-2977-18T1
5
referred her to numerous services. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
Division considered alternatives to termination, however, Amanda only showed
marginal improvement.
For two years, the Division provided supervised visits with Todd and
referred Amanda to therapy, substance abuse treatment, and parenting classes
but her attendance was erratic and she routinely missed scheduled appointments.
She also tested positive for marijuana on occasion. The Division filed a
complaint for guardianship and order to show cause on May 04, 2018.
On February 07, 2019, a guardianship trial was conducted. The Division
called three witnesses: Dr. Mark Singer, an expert in bonding and parental
fitness; Ereka Sweat, a Division adoption worker; and Nefaltio Lopez, a
Division permanency worker. Neither Amanda nor the Law Guardian presented
any witnesses.
On February 21, 2019, Judge Grimbergen issued a written opinion which
terminated Amanda's parental rights to Todd and entered a judgment of
guardianship. Judge Grimbergen gave thoughtful attention to the importance of
permanency and stability from the perspective of Todd's needs, and she found
the Division had established by clear and convincing evidence all four prongs
of the best-interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), which, in the best interest of
A-2977-18T1
6
the child, permits termination of parental rights. In re Guardianship of K.H.O.,
161 N.J. 337, 347-48 (1999).
In this appeal, our review of the judge's decision is limited. We defer to
her expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-13
(1998), and we are bound by her factual findings so long as they are supported
by sufficient credible evidence, N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M.,
189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (citing In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172,
188 (App. Div. 1993)). We conclude the factual findings of Judge Grimbergen
are fully supported by the record and the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are
unassailable.
Affirmed.
A-2977-18T1
7