RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0293-17T2

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF

CHILD PROTECTION AND

PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

P.K.S.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF B.A.N.M. and M.J.L.M.,

Minors.

____________________________________

Submitted May 30, 2018 – Decided July 10, 2018

Before Judges Fisher and Sumners.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester 

County, Docket No. FG-08-0021-17.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Lauren M. Derasmo, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney 

for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2 A-0293-17T2

Attorney General, of counsel; Amy Melissa 

Young, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for minors (Charles Ouslander, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a Family Part order terminating her 

parental rights to her then almost three-year old son B.A.N.M

(Barry),

1 and her then one-and-a-half-year old son M.J.L.M.

(Mike).2 The Law Guardian supports termination and urges us to 

uphold the order. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated 

by Judge Timothy W. Chell in his thorough twenty-five page written 

decision issued with the order.

The pertinent trial evidence is detailed in the judge's 

decision. A summary will suffice here. The judge found that both 

of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency's (Division) 

witnesses, the caseworker and its expert in clinical and forensic

psychology, Dr. James L. Loving, Psy. D., gave credible testimony 

that established defendant's lack of parental ability endangered 

her "children's safety, health, and development," causing them 

"real and substantial harm." Defendant did not present any 

 

1 We use pseudonyms to protect the identities of the parties 

involved.

2 The children's biological fathers are unknown.
3 A-0293-17T2

witnesses. In fact, she showed little interest in the proceedings; 

failing to attend the trial, and attending only one of the five 

pre-trial hearings.

When Barry was about two-and-a-half years old and living with 

defendant, their house – to put it mildly – was in a deplorable 

condition; rotting groceries in the driveway surrounded by flies 

and maggots; dog feces inside the house; urine stains throughout 

the house; a dirty kitchen with an inoperable refrigerator; and 

graffiti on the walls and doors. This discovery, along with a 

doctor's examination of Barry that revealed several abrasions and 

a bald spot on his head suggesting he was laying on his back for 

extensive periods, led to an Abuse and Neglect proceeding. That

litigation, in which defendant stipulated she abused or neglected 

Barry because her home was unsafe, culminated in an order awarding 

the Division custody, care, and supervision of Barry. Seven months

earlier, the Division was granted custody, care, and supervision 

of Mike – a week after his birth and before he left the hospital.

With her sons placed with resource parents, defendant was 

offered services to assist her with the Division's plan for 

reunification. However, the plan was transformed to termination 

when defendant was dismissed from three visitation programs 

offered by the Division due to her inconsistent participation;

failure to obtain suitable housing; failure to provide an 
4 A-0293-17T2

acceptable family member to serve as kinship legal guardian; and 

failure to demonstrate no ability to properly parent her sons.

Dr. Loving opined that, based upon his bonding evaluations 

of the boys with the resource parents, they have a sense of safety, 

security and trust with the resource parents, such that if they 

were removed from them, it would place them at a high risk for 

serious and lasting harm that defendant would be unable to resolve.

No bonding evaluation was conducted between defendant and the boys 

because she failed to attend the evaluation. 

Based upon the evidence presented, Judge Chell issued a 

written decision analyzing how the Division satisfied the four 

prongs of the best-interests-of-the-child standard, N.J.S.A. 

30:4C-15.1(a), and entered an order terminating defendant's 

parental rights to her sons. Defendant contends the judge erred 

because there was insufficient, credible evidence supporting the 

order.

We disagree. Our review of the Judge Chell's comprehensive 

decision is limited. We defer to his expertise as a Family Part 

judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998), and we are 

bound by his 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, 269 (2007) (citing In The Matter of

Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)). 
5 A-0293-17T2

After reviewing the record, we conclude that defendant's arguments 

are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), because the judge's factual findings 

are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, 

his legal conclusions are unassailable.

Affirmed.