## 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., Minor s .

______ ______________________________ 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
- 00 21
- 17.
Jose ph 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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 minor s (Charles Ouslander, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from a F amily Part order terminating her parental rights to her then almost thr ee - 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 h is thorough twenty - five page written decision issued with the order . The pertinent trial evidence is detail ed in the judge's decision . A summary will suffice here. The j udge 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 t hem "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; fail ing to attend the trial, and attend ing only one of the five
pre - trial hearings. When Barry was about two
- and
- a - half year s old and living with
defendant , the ir house

– to put it mildly

– was in a deplorable condition ; rotting groceries in the driveway surrounded by flies and maggo ts ; dog feces inside the house ; urine stains throughout
the house ; a dirty kitchen with an inope rable refrigerator ; and graffiti on the walls and doors. This discovery, along with a doctor's examination of B arry that reveal ed 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 . Th at litigation, in which defendant stipulated she abused or neglected Barry because her home was unsafe , culminated in an order awarding the Division custody , care, an d supervision of Barry. Seven months earlier, the Div ision was granted custody, care, and supervision
of Mike

– a week after his birth and before he left the hospital . With he r sons placed with resource parents , defendant was offered services to assist her with the Division's plan for reunification. However , the plan w as transformed to termination
when defendant was dismissed from three visitation programs offered by the Division due to her inconsistent participation ; fail ure to obtain suitable housing ; failure to provide an4 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 resour ce 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 s tandard, N.J.S.A.
30:4C
- 15.1(a), and entered an order termin ating defendant's parental rights to her sons. Defendant contends the judge erred because there was insufficient, credible evidence supporting the
order. We disagree. O ur review of the Judge Chell's comprehensive decision is limited. We defer to his ex pertise 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) (citin g 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 writ ten opinion, R. 2:11
- 3(e)(1)(E), because th e judge's factual findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, his legal conclusions are unassailable. Affirmed.