RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-5105-17T3

 A-5107-17T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION 

OF CHILD PROTECTION 

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

T.R. and J.R.,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

GUARDIANSHIP OF M.R. and H.R., 

Minors.

_______________________________

Submitted September 19, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FG-02-0035-17.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 26, 2019
2

A-5105-17T3

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant T.R. (Marina Ginzburg, Designated Counsel, 

on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant J.R. (Phuong Vinh Dao, Designated Counsel, 

on the briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jason Wade Rockwell, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Jane S. Blank, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minors (Joseph Hector Ruiz, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendants T.R. and J.R. appeal from a June 22, 2018 order terminating 

their parental rights to two of their children, M.R. and H.R.1 After an eight-day 

trial, Judge William R. DeLorenzo, Jr. issued a 133-page written opinion finding 

that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) had satisfied 

all four prongs of the best interests of the child test set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C15.1(a), justifying termination of defendants' parental rights. We affirm.

Judge DeLorenzo's opinion reviewed the evidence in great detail. A 

summary will suffice here. T.R., the mother of the children, has a history of 

 

1

 We use initials to protect the family's privacy.
3

A-5105-17T3

untreated substance abuse and mental health issues. She had been unable or 

unwilling to provide a safe and stable home for her children for more than three 

years at the time of trial. The Division became involved when the family was 

facing imminent eviction from a home in disarray with no heat or hot water. The 

children were compelled to bathe at the homes of relatives, did not regularly 

attend school, were poorly supervised, and periodically suffered from food 

insecurity. T.R. displayed hoarding behavior, which contributed to a state of 

chaos in the home.

J.R., the father of the children and T.R.'s spouse, also lived in the home,

but took no steps to assure the safety of the children, the payment of rent, the 

maintenance of the home, or the children's attendance at school. Although J.R. 

worked regularly, providing for the children's needs was not a priority for him. 

J.R. has a history of gambling and substance abuse. He admitted to being under 

the influence of cocaine and heroin while living with the children. He was 

treated successfully and, at the time of trial, his substance abuse was in 

remission. However, he tested positive for suboxone, a substance abuse 

medication, shortly before the trial and could not explain why he had ingested 

the drug. Defendants had a tumultuous relationship, including incidents of 
4

A-5105-17T3

domestic violence. The children were exposed to a violent episode between T.R. 

and her older daughter, who is not the subject of this appeal.

The Division removed the children from defendants' custody and placed 

them with a maternal relative. The resource parent has provided a stable and 

supportive home for the children. They have been attending school, where they 

are doing well, are participating in extracurricular activities, and have expressed 

a desire to remain with their resource parent, who wishes to adopt them. The 

children would like to remain in limited contact with their parents after adoption. 

The trial court found credible the resource parent's expressed intention to

continue to permit visitation if she is allowed to adopt the children.

Although defendants were provided with liberal visitation rights, neither 

made a consistent effort to visit the children. T.R. relocated a number of times, 

including to California and Hawaii, to enroll in substance abuse programs. The 

record contains no evidence of T.R. having successfully completed any program. 

In addition, when T.R. was not enrolled in a program, her housing was unstable. 

She lived in various shelters and at one point reported she was sleeping on a 

California beach. J.R., although geographically close to the children, rarely 

visited them and refused to acknowledge that his inconsistent presence in their 

lives caused them harm. Although the resource parent provided each child with 
5

A-5105-17T3

a cellphone and permitted unlimited telephone and text communication between 

the children and their parents prior to the children's bedtime, neither T.R. nor 

J.R. maintained consistent contact with their children.

The defendants did not develop a realistic plan for reunification with the 

children, the provision of stable housing, or their long-term care. T.R. is 

unemployed, continues to struggle with substance abuse, does not take her 

psychiatric medications regularly, and does not have a permanent residence. 

Although J.R. has a home, he does not maintain consistent visitation with the 

children and continues to have a volatile relationship with T.R., with whom he 

has periodically lived.

2

 The Division has repeatedly attempted to facilitate J.R.'s 

reunification with the children.

The trial court found credible expert testimony that the benefit of 

terminating defendants' parental rights to permit adoption by the resource parent 

would outweigh any harm visited on the children. The court accepted the expert 

opinion that while the children love their parents, they are aware that they cannot 

provide a safe and stable home for them and would be harmed by removal from 

the supportive environment provided by their resource parent.

 

2

 At one point, T.R. returned from California with a boyfriend. J.R. permitted 

his wife and her boyfriend to live in his home.
6

A-5105-17T3

On appeal, T.R. argues the following points:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING 

[T.R.'S] PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE THE 

STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH BY CLEAR AND 

CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION 

WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE 

CHILDREN UNDER N.J.S.A. 30:4C[-]15 AND 

N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1.

A. [T.R.'S] ACTIONS DID NOT AFFECT THE 

CHILDREN'S SAFETY, HEALTH OR 

DEVELOPMENT AND CONTINUING THE 

PARENT RELATIONSHIP WILL NOT ENDANGER 

THE CHILDREN AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE 

FIRST PRONG OF THE "BEST INTEREST[S]" 

TEST.

B. [T.R.] IS ABLE AND WILLING TO PROVIDE 

HER CHILDREN WITH A SAFE AND STABLE 

HOME AND THE DELAY OF PERMANENT 

PLACEMENT WILL NOT HARM THE CHILDREN 

AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE SECOND PRONG 

OF THE "BEST INTEREST[S]" TEST.

C. THE DIVISION DID NOT MAKE 

REASONABLE EFFORTS PURSUANT TO THE 

THIRD PRONG OF THE "BEST INTEREST[S]" 

TEST TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE FAMILY 

WHICH WOULD HELP [T.R.] CORRECT THE 

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH RESULTED IN HER 

BEING SEPARATED FROM HER SON.

D. TERMINATION OF [T.R.'S] PARENTAL 

RIGHTS WILL CAUSE MORE HARM THAN GOOD 

TO [H.R.] AND [M.R.] AS CONTEMPLATED BY 

THE FOURTH PRONG OF THE "BEST 

INTEREST[S]" TEST AS IT WILL PERMANENTLY 
7

A-5105-17T3

SEVER[] THE CHILDREN'S TIES TO THEIR 

PARENTS.

J.R. raises the following points for our consideration:

THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN 

SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT 

TERMINATION OF J.R.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS TO 

M.R. AND H.R. IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS, 

THEREFORE, THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT

TERMINATING J.R.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS MUST 

BE VACATED.

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT 

FOUND THAT J.R.'S PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP 

PRESENTED A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM TO 

M.R. AND H.R.

II. THE TRIAL COURT WAS WRONG WHEN IT 

CONCLUDED J.R. WAS UNABLE OR UNWILLING 

TO MITIGATE THE HARM THAT MIGHT RESULT 

FROM REUNIFICATION.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN 

CONCLUDING [THE DIVISION'S] SERVICES 

WERE REASONABLE TO SATISFY PRONG 

THREE.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT 

FOUND THAT M.R. AND H.R. WOULD BE 

HARMED FROM CONTINUED CONTACT WITH 

THEIR FATHER.

Our review of Judge DeLorenzo's decision is limited and deferential. We 

will not disturb a trial judge's factual findings so long as they are supported by 

substantial credible evidence. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 
8

A-5105-17T3

217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). We defer to the judge's evaluation of witness 

credibility and to his expertise in family court matters. Id. at 552-53.

After carefully reviewing the record in light of the applicable precedents, 

we conclude that substantial credible evidence supports Judge DeLorenzo's 

decision. There is no basis for us to disturb his well-reasoned determination that 

the Division has established by clear and convincing evidence that termination 

of defendants' parental rights was warranted. We therefore affirm the June 22, 

2018 order for the reasons stated in the judge's comprehensive written opinion. 

Defendants' arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion

in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.