### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO S . 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 G UARDIANSHIP OF M.R. and H.R.,
M inors.

________ __________ _____________

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

- 00 35

- 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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, 20192 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 V inh Dao, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Jason W ade 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 H ector 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 chi ldren, M.R. and H.R. 1 After an eight

- day
tria l , 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 interest s of the child test set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C

15.1(a), justifyi ng termination of defendants' parental rights. We affirm. Judge DeLorenzo's opinion reviewed the evidence in great de tail . A

sum mary 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 ha d 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 e viction from a home in disarray with no heat or hot wa ter. 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 h ome. 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 n eeds was not a p riority for him. J.R. has a history of gambling and substance abuse . He admitted to being under
the influence of cocaine and heroin while livi ng 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 of4 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 fro m 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, a nd 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 effor t 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 p oint reported she was sleeping on a
California beach

. J.R., although geographically close to the chil dren , rarely visited them and refused to acknowledge that his inconsistent presence in their
lives caused them harm

. Although the resource parent provided each child with5 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 th eir children.
The defendant s 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 medi cations regularly, and does not have a permanent residence

. Although J.R. has a home, he d oes 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 vi sited 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 the ir 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 CHILDRE N 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 PRO NG OF THE "BEST INTE REST [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 REASON A BLE 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] " TE ST AS IT WILL PERMANENTLY7 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 JUDGME N T TERMINATIN G J.R.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS MUST BE VACATED.
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERR ED 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 TRIA L 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 (2 014). 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 suppor t s Judge DeLorenzo's
decision. There is no basis for us to disturb h is 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 J une 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.