DCPP VS. L.M.A. AND A.C., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.I.A. (FG-07-0170-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED)

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NOS. A-2350-17T2
A-2352-17T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
L.M.A. and A.C.,
Defendants-Appellants.
———————————————
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF A.I.A.,
a Minor.
———————————————
Submitted March 13, 2019 – Decided March 28, 2019
Before Judges Nugent, Reisner and Mawla.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
No. FG-07-0170-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant L.M.A. (Ruth A. Harrigan, Designated
Counsel, on the briefs).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant A.C. (Victor E. Ramos, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Casey J. Woodruff, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (Meredith A. Pollock, Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel; Todd S. Wilson, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
L.M.A. (Lisa) and A.C. (Allen), the parents of A.I.A. (Anna), each appeal
from a January 5, 2018 judgment terminating their parental rights. 1 We affirm.
Lisa and Allen have had a long history of involvement with the Division
of Child Protection and Permanency (Division). That history, in part, involved
four other children who are not the subject of this litigation. Those four children
are all older than Anna, who was born in 2016.
1
We utilize fictitious names to protect the privacy of the parties and their
children.
A-2350-17T2
2
In 2005, the Division substantiated Allen for sexual abuse of a child.
Between 2008 and February 2014, the Division received nine referrals relating
to Lisa and opened a case in order to provide her with services.
In August 2014, the Division conducted a visit with Lisa, and noted she
had a bruise on her face and a fading black eye. Lisa denied the injuries were
from domestic violence and told the Division she was not in a relationship with
Allen because he had been unfaithful. She claimed the injuries resulted from
confronting Allen's paramour, who then retaliated with a physical assault.
However, a police report indicated Lisa told police Allen punched and kicked
her, bit her all over her body leaving three large bite marks on her back and one
on her cheek, and struck her in the head with a glass jar.
In September 2014, the Division received another referral of domestic
violence concerning Lisa. A caseworker who traveled to Lisa's apartment
noticed the scent of marijuana. The caseworker also observed bruising on Lisa's
face, and on one of her daughters. The Division referred Lisa to domestic
violence counseling and requested urine screenings. She tested positive for
marijuana and admitted to smoking marijuana while she was pregnant.
The Division learned of multiple domestic violence incidents between
Lisa and Allen, and that Lisa's bruises were a result of Allen hitting her. Lisa
A-2350-17T2
3
and Allen agreed to a safety protection plan, which required Allen to leave the
home to enable the Division to evaluate the risk posed to the children. However,
Allen violated the safety plan, remained in the house, and assaulted one of Lisa's
children. Given the prevalence of drug use and domestic violence in the
household, the Division filed a complaint for custody of the four children living
in the home with Lisa and Allen in October 2014.
In December 2014, the Division conducted a psychological evaluation of
Lisa. Lisa denied any domestic violence between her and Allen, and denied
Allen had ever hit the children. Lisa reported having chronic depression. She
planned to reunite with Allen and reside together with the children. The
evaluation concluded Lisa was attempting to conceal the history of domestic
violence, and although Allen was incarcerated at the time, there remained a
significant risk of domestic violence if they reunited. The evaluation
recommended substance abuse screening and psychotherapy for Lisa due to her
minimization of the domestic violence history. The evaluation also
recommended a mental health evaluation of Allen in order to identify the risk
factors for Lisa and the children, and Allen's treatment needs.
In January 2015, the Division conducted a psychological evaluation of
two of the children, Jason and Leslie. The resultant report concluded they had
A-2350-17T2
4
suffered significant emotional harm from the exposure to domestic violence and
physical abuse by Allen, and both children were "extremely frightened of
[him.]" The report also noted "[t]here was a clear pattern of deceit and cover up
by [Lisa] around [Allen]'s physical attacks on her in addition to what he was
doing to the children."
In January 2015, Lisa stipulated to abuse or neglect of the children.
Specifically, she admitted denying domestic violence in the home, despite marks
and bruises on her face, and had violated the safety protection plan when she
allowed Allen to return to the family home. Allen also stipulated he engaged in
domestic violence in front of the children, violated the safety protection plan,
and inappropriately physically disciplined the children.
Another child, Sally, was born in April 2015. The court granted the
Division custody of her as well.
In May 2015, the Division conducted a second psychological evaluation,
which noted Lisa had successfully met her substance abuse treatment
recommendations, including negative urine screens, actively participating in
therapy, and taking her medication. As a result, the report recommended
allowing Lisa to have unsupervised visitation with the children. Although the
report noted some concerns regarding Lisa's continued contact with Allen, she
A-2350-17T2
5
denied any desire to reunite with him and claimed her main focus was her
children. However, in September 2015, the Division learned Lisa brought the
children to visit Allen in prison.
In August 2015, the Division performed a psychological evaluation of
Allen. He reported a history of depression from molestation as a child, for which
he had been taking medication. He also reported criminality as a juvenile and
an adult, and domestic violence, and difficulty managing his anger. Allen
admitted to assaulting Lisa while he was drunk because she discovered another
woman texting him. Allen also claimed he had no plans to reunite with Lisa.
The evaluation recommended he have relapse prevention counseling.
In November 2015, the Division filed a guardianship complaint for Adam
and Sally. Shortly afterwards, Lisa attended another psychological evaluation.
When the evaluator inquired about an engagement ring Lisa was wearing, she
became emotional and proclaimed she still loved Allen. Also, despite an initial
denial, Lisa admitted to using marijuana once. The evaluator noted Lisa was
selective with the information she provided and denied any wrongdoing
regarding the children. The psychological testing revealed she was depressed,
had low self-esteem, and felt helpless and hopeless. The evaluator concluded
Lisa was incapable of adequately parenting the children.
A-2350-17T2
6
In March 2016, the Division conducted a bonding and psychological
evaluation of Allen with Adam and Sally. Allen admitted he had not seen Adam
in two years and had never met Sally before the bonding evaluation. The
evaluation noted Allen admitted to domestic violence with Lisa. He stated he
and Lisa began fighting because of another woman, and said it "got ugly" and
he "yoked [Lisa] up." He claimed this was the only incident of domestic
violence, despite the objective evidence known to the Division of multiple other
incidents. Allen also admitted striking Jason with a belt, but denied beating the
children. The evaluation concluded Allen had difficulty adhering to limits, as
evidenced by his recent incarceration, was not likely to be a viable parenting
option for his children in the near future, and should not have any contact with
Lisa.
The Division also conducted a bonding and psychological evaluation of
Lisa in March 2016. She denied the children were ever physically disciplined
or exposed to domestic violence. She claimed she only stipulated to abuse or
neglect because she had a learning disability and was misinformed. She denied
Allen had access to the children and that she ever used alcohol or marijuana,
until confronted with evidence to the contrary.
A-2350-17T2
7
The evaluation concluded Lisa was minimizing the history of abuse and
domestic violence between her and Allen, and failed to realize how it impacted
her children. The report noted Lisa's failure to admit she was a victim of
domestic violence demonstrated her inability to put her children's needs before
her own. The report stated Lisa "minimize[d] personal faults and holds
unrealistically positive perceptions of her level of psychological
functioning. . . . As such, she may have difficulty responding effectively and
flexibly to the changing demands placed upon her as a parent."
In pertinent part, the report recommended Lisa continue to participate in
individual therapy to address her minimization of the domestic violence, the
inability to place her children's needs in front of hers, and her tendency to seek
out poor relationships. The report recommended Lisa not have contact with
Allen. Notably, the report found Lisa had begun to address these issues and had
a window of opportunity to make progress. However, if Lisa had contact with
Allen, or relapsed, a termination of parental rights would be the only alternative.
In April 2016, Anna was born at Hackensack University Medical Center.
She and Lisa tested positive for THC. Hospital records indicated Lisa denied
using marijuana and blamed it on "smoke in the halls" of her apartment. She
also denied a history of domestic violence and safety concerns for her and Anna.
A-2350-17T2
8
A caseworker interviewed Lisa at the hospital. She reported smoking
marijuana one time in March 2016, because of stress related to custody
proceedings in court. She claimed marijuana remained in her system longer
because she was a heavy set woman. She admitted she attempted to use her girth
to hide her pregnancy and purposely left Newark for Hackensack to give birth
in order to prevent the Division from taking her baby.
The court granted the Division custody of Anna in April 2016, and placed
her in a non-relative resource home. Lisa continued to test positive for
marijuana in a series of weekly screenings following Anna's birth.
In June 2016, the guardianship trial for Adam and Sally occurred. The
Division presented testimony of its expert, who had performed the psychological
evaluations of Allen and Lisa. The expert testified Allen was unfit to parent
either of the children because of his past history of domestic violence and
physical abuse of the children, and that Lisa hid this history during the
evaluation process. The expert noted, that despite confronting Lisa with
evidence within the Division's record to the contrary and giving Lisa the
opportunity to recant her misrepresentations, she remained untruthful. As a
result, he concluded Lisa was also unlikely to be a viable parenting option for
Adam and Sally in the foreseeable future, because "one of the themes that has
A-2350-17T2
9
occurred over time is this theme of secrecy and deception." The expert noted he
could no longer recommend Lisa have additional time to demonstrate progress
towards reunification because of her inability to be truthful.
Allen also testified, and represented he had participated in life skills, anger
management, domestic violence, drug treatment, and parenting programs during
his incarceration. He claimed he had not violated the safety plan because he
refused to see the children when Lisa brought them to the halfway house to visit
him. He also claimed he did not have any contact with Lisa since his release
from incarceration in November 2015, and had no future plans to parent with
her. Allen denied striking Jason. He admitted to one incident with Lisa in which
he threw a chair at her and bit her, but claimed she hit him. He also admitted he
and Lisa had attempted to conceal his identity from the Division. Allen also
denied Anna was his daughter because she was conceived while he was
incarcerated.
In June 2016, the court terminated Lisa's and Allen's parental rights to
Adam and Sally. We affirmed both decisions. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. &
Permanency v. L.M.A., Nos. A-4929-15, A-4931-15 (App. Div. June 11, 2018).
In this case, Lisa participated in intensive outpatient treatment following
Anna's birth, no longer tested positive for drugs, and completed a substance
A-2350-17T2
10
abuse treatment program. She also agreed to attend domestic violence
counseling. A paternity test confirmed Allen was Anna's father and he was
joined as a party in this matter.
In October 2016, both parents met with the Division to discuss visitation.
Again, each denied there was domestic violence. In November 2016, Allen
enrolled in a residential program for substance abuse treatment, domestic
violence and abuse counseling, mental health group therapy, and parenting
classes.
Following a permanency hearing on December 13, 2016, the court
approved the Division's plan for termination of parental rights followed by
adoption. The court found Lisa and Allen had failed to remediate the issues ,
which caused Anna's removal.
Throughout December 2016 and January 2017, Lisa sought mental health
treatment for her anxiety and chronic depression. She continued to express a
desire for a relationship with Allen and reported "the person [I] love [I] can[']t
be with."
The Division assessed whether Lisa's mother would be a viable option for
Anna's placement. However, a psychological evaluation determined she was
A-2350-17T2
11
incapable of providing adequate parenting for her grandchild. She was also
listed in the Division registry as a substantiated perpetrator of neglect.
In April 2017, the Division conducted updated psychological evaluations
with Lisa and Allen, and also performed comparative bonding evaluations for
each parent and Anna's resource parent. Lisa continued to deny Allen had
physically abused her children, and denied her children had ever witnessed
domestic violence. She also denied having any contact with Allen since Anna
was born. The evaluator reported Lisa appeared to be sober, had no active
symptoms of mental illness, and if she remained on a positive trajectory, there
was a possibility she could become a viable parenting option.
Allen told the evaluator he had previously engaged in domestic violence
with Lisa, but said he was no longer in contact with her. Allen wished to reunite
with Anna and indicated he completed substance abuse treatment as a part of his
parole. Allen also stated he had completed parenting skills and anger
management training, and was currently taking medication for his bipolar
disorder. Because of Allen's own history as a victim and perpetrator of sexual
abuse, the Division referred him for a psychosexual evaluation.
The bonding evaluations revealed Allen and Lisa were affectionate and
appropriate with Anna, and she had developed a level of comfort with each of
A-2350-17T2
12
them. The evaluator opined Lisa was more likely to become a viable parenting
option than Allen, but she would have to maintain her sobriety, participate in a
relapse prevention program, therapy, and medication monitoring. However, a
failure to comply would most likely leave termination of parental rights as the
only option. Likewise, the evaluator opined Allen could become a viable
placement option if he complied with substance abuse treatment, therapy, and
medication monitoring, in addition to the aforementioned psychosexual
evaluation. The evaluator concluded both parents should have a period of four
months to build on their progress.
The bonding evaluation with the resource parent found she was very
engaging with Anna, and the child's relationship with her resource mother had a
deeper quality and intensity than with her biological parents. The foster mother
had been caring for Anna since her birth and wished to adopt her. The evaluator
noted because Anna and her resource parent had the foundation for a healthy
attachment, Anna would internalize the attachment by the time she was two
years old, and the passage of time increased the risk of enduring harm if the
child was returned to her biological parents.
In April and May 2017, the law guardian's expert performed psychological
and bonding evaluations. Lisa continued to deny marijuana usage while she was
A-2350-17T2
13
pregnant with Anna and downplayed the history of domestic violence . She
denied having a relationship with Allen following his incarceration. The
evaluation concluded Lisa had a long history of being "deceitful and
manipulative" with the Division, citing her interference with Division
investigations, concealment of Allen's criminal background, and hiding the
pregnancy. The evaluator also questioned Lisa's commitment to sobriety and
her capacity to have a healthy and safe relationship, because she minimized the
history of domestic violence and marginally engaged in relapse prevention
services.
During his evaluation, Allen stated he was still living at a halfway house
and hoped to leave by July 2017. He claimed he was taking prescribed
medication and finding success in therapy. He intended to secure housing, go
to school, continue attending treatment, and win custody of his children. Allen
claimed he and Lisa ended their relationship during his incarceration.
The bonding evaluations on behalf of the law guardian concluded Anna
had a closer, healthier, and stronger bond with the resource parent than with
either biological parent. The evaluation concluded Lisa had the skills necessary
to act as a babysitter or school aide, but lacked a deep and intense emotional
attachment to Anna. The evaluator also noted Lisa did not understand the issues
A-2350-17T2
14
of attachment or the difficulties Anna would experience by removing her from
her resource parent. The expert expressed the same concerns regarding Allen,
and emphasized Allen had not demonstrated the capacity for independent living
outside of the halfway home. The expert also noted although each parent had
claimed their relationship had ended, they had provided inconsistent reasons for
its demise, and previously misled the Division regarding their association
without remorse.
Throughout the summer of 2017, Lisa continued to have supervised visits
with Anna. Although Lisa had been attending a domestic violence program, she
demonstrated poor judgment because she lacked insight into the harmful nature
of her relationship with Allen. Allen fell out of contact with the Division and
ceased visiting Anna.
Anna's guardianship trial occurred on four dates in September, October,
and November 2017. Allen did not attend trial. Without objection, the trial
judge took judicial notice of the prior guardianship matters.
The Division caseworker assigned to the family since September 2016,
testified and authenticated the Division's records without objection. The
caseworker explained the children's removal in 2014 due to domestic violence
and the parents' attempts to conceal it, the violation of the safety plan, and Lisa's
A-2350-17T2
15
attempts to conceal her pregnancy from the Division. The caseworker also
explained the Division's attempts at reunifying the family.
The law guardian's expert testified consistent with her report. She
reiterated Anna would not suffer harm if she was separated from either parent,
and her foster mother would be able to mitigate any type of harm that would
arise. The expert cited Lisa's and Allen's previous history with the Division as
evidence of future harm to Anna. The expert testified Lisa lacked insight into
the impact domestic violence and abuse had on her children, and Allen's failure
to remain in contact with the Division was a poor reflection of his commitment
to Anna.
As to both parents' history of deception and misrepresentations to the
Division, the expert opined the parents told authority figures what they wanted
to hear in order to avoid scrutiny. The expert noted this conduct was problematic
because it was contrary to a parent's obligation to be truthful with doctors,
teachers, and others in order to meet their child's needs.
Notably, the law guardian's expert disagreed with the Division's expert,
who stated that allowing Lisa additional time to engage in reunification services
would not harm Anna. The law guardian's expert explained Lisa would need to
A-2350-17T2
16
be sober for eighteen to twenty-four months in order to achieve remission and
the passage of more time deprived Anna of permanency.
The Division's expert testified a termination of parental rights would not
cause Anna more harm than good. The expert stated Anna was at risk of harm
due to the possibility of Lisa reuniting with Allen, given the couple's previous
pattern of unauthorized contact and violation of the Division's safety plan.
According to the expert, Lisa did not have sufficient understanding of how
domestic violence impacted her children. Although Lisa had been drug-free,
she had a history of relapse and failed to regularly attend relapse support
meetings. The Division's expert could not recommend reunification with Anna
based on Lisa's history of deception, especially regarding domestic violence.
The expert also could not recommend reunification between Allen and Anna
because Allen did not submit to the psychosexual evaluation.
The Division's expert concluded both parents had not fully complied with
his recommendations. He noted his initial recommendation of a reevaluation
period of three-to-four months was primarily to afford Anna permanency and
this time had passed without marked improvement by either parent.
Lisa also testified. Despite evidence to the contrary, she insisted the
children did not witness domestic violence and she had no intention of reuniting
A-2350-17T2
17
with Allen. She admitted she misrepresented her past marijuana use, but
claimed she had not used or tested positive since July 2016. Lisa denied
attempting to conceal Anna's birth from the Division, the history of violence,
and that she knew Allen was Anna's father. She also denied violating the
Division's safety plan.
On January 5, 2018, the trial judge issued a written decision finding the
Division had met the four-prong best interests of the child test under N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.1(a), and signed a judgment granting the Division guardianship of
Anna. The judge found the testimony of the caseworker and both experts
credible. He did not find Lisa credible and noted she "continue[d] to provide
untruths and conflicting information" regarding her history of domestic violence
and the custody of her children.
I.
On this appeal, Lisa raises the following points of argument for our
consideration:
POINT I: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
FINDING THAT ALL FOUR PRONGS OF THE BEST
INTERESTS TEST FOR TERMINATION WERE
PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT
OF GUARDIANSHIP SHOULD BE REVERSED.
A-2350-17T2
18
(A) THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT
LISA CAUSED HARM BY NOT BEING
TRUTHFUL WITH DCPP, TO A DEGREE
THAT SATISFIED THE FIRST STATUTORY
PRONG, IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE
RECORD.
(B) THE JUDGMENT TERMINATING
LISA'S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE
REVERSED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE
DOES NOT SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT LISA IS UNABLE TO
PROVIDE [ANNA] WITH A SAFE AND
STABLE HOME.
(C) THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN HIS
DETERMINATION THAT DCPP SATISFIED
THE REASONABLE EFFORTS STANDARD
BECAUSE IT FAILED TO PROVIDE
SERVICES THAT WERE REASONABLE
UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND
THE COURT DID NOT EXPLORE
ALTERNATIVES TO TERMINATION.
1. The Trial Judge Erred In His
Determination That DCPP's Unreasonable
Cookie Cutter Approach, Rather Than
Tailored Services, Satisfied The Third
Prong Of The Test.
2. The Trial Court's Reliance On DCPP
Being Relieved Of Efforts Was Error
Because The First Termination Action Was
Still On Appeal And Not Final.
3. The Trial Judge Failed To Make A
Determination That DCPP Considered
Alternatives To Termination.
A-2350-17T2
19
(D) THE JUDGMENT TERMINATING
LISA'S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE
REVERSED BECAUSE THE RECORD LACKS
RELIABLE AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S LEGAL
CONCLUSION THAT TERMINATION OF
PARENTAL RIGHTS WILL NOT DO MORE
HARM THAN GOOD.
POINT II: TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO
OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF TRANSCRIPTS
FROM LISA'S PRIOR TERMINATION TRIAL
CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL AND WARRANTS REVERSAL. (Not
Raised Below).
Allen asserts the following points in his appeal:
POINT I. TERMINATION OF [ALLEN]'S
PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS NOT WARRANTED
UNDER THE "BEST INTERESTS TEST" OF N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.1(A).
A. The Court Erred In Deeming The First
Prong Of The Test Satisfied By Clear And
Convincing Evidence Where [Anna] Was Not
Harmed By The Circumstances Resulting In Her
Removal, Where Her Safety, Health And
Development Was Not Endangered By [Allen]
Availing Himself Of Services Addressing Any
Such Risk And Where The Court Erroneously
Relied On An Impermissible Child Hearsay
Allegation That Informed A Psychological
Recommendation Underpinning Its Finding Of A
Risk Of Harm.
B. The Court Erred In Deeming The Second
Prong Of The Test Satisfied By Clear And
A-2350-17T2
20
Convincing Evidence Where [Allen] Self-
Enrolled And Availed Himself Of Services At A
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
Program, Obtained Employment And Housing
And Presented A Plan For [Anna's] Care By The
Time Of The Guardianship Trial (Sic).
C. The Court Erred In Concluding Prong
Three Of The Test Satisfied Where The Record
Does Not Establish That The Court Fully
Considered Alternatives To Termination Of
Parental Rights When DCPP's Rule Out Of A
Relative On Best Interest Grounds Was Based On
An Unnamed Expert Not Present At The
Guardianship Trial For Cross Examination.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that these arguments are without
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the trial judge. We add only
these comments.
In striking a balance between a parent's constitutional rights and a child's
fundamental needs, courts employ the four-part guardianship test articulated in
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 604-11 (1986), and
codified as N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a):
a. The division shall initiate a petition to terminate
parental rights on the grounds of the "best interests of
the child" pursuant to subsection (c) of section 15 of
P.L. 1951, c. 138 (C. 30:4C-15) if the following
standards are met:
A-2350-17T2
21
(1) The child's safety, health or
development has been or will continue to
be endangered by the parental relationship;
(2) The parent is 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.
Such harm may include evidence that
separating the child from [her] resource
family parents would cause serious and
enduring emotional or psychological harm
to the child;
(3) The division has made reasonable
efforts to provide services to help the
parent correct the circumstances which led
to the child's placement outside the home
and the court has considered alternatives to
termination of parental rights; and
(4) Termination of parental rights will not
do more harm than good.
[N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a).]
In their application, the four factors above "are not discrete and separate, but
relate to and overlap with one another to provide a comprehensive standard that
identifies a child's best interests." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.S.,
202 N.J. 145, 167 (2010) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L.,
191 N.J. 596, 606-07 (2007)).
A-2350-17T2
22
In reviewing the trial judge's decision, we must defer to his factual
findings unless they "went so wide of the mark that a mistake must have been
made." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007)
(quoting C.B. Snyder Realty, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am. Inc., 233 N.J. Super. 65,
69 (App. Div. 1989)). So long as "they are 'supported by adequate, substantial
and credible evidence,'" a trial judge's factual findings will not be disturbed on
appeal. In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)
(quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974)).
We owe special deference to the trial judge's expertise in handling family issues.
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-13 (1998).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude the trial judge's factual findings
are based on sufficient credible evidence, and in light of those findings, his legal
conclusions are unassailable. The record amply supports his decision that the
termination of parental rights is in Anna's best interests.
Affirmed.
A-2350-17T2
23