RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0664-19T2

NEW JERSEY DIVISION 

OF CHILD PROTECTION 

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

A.P., 

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF A.P.,

a minor.

_________________________

Submitted October 1, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes, Whipple, and Firko.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FG-02-0041-19.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public Defender,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 30, 2020
2

A-0664-19T2

of counsel; Bruce P. Lee, Designated Counsel, on the 

briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Julie B. Colonna, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy 

Public Defender, of counsel; Rachel E. Seidman, 

Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on 

the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, A.P. (Anthony),1appeals from a September 26, 2019,

judgment in favor of the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and 

Permanency (Division) terminating his parental rights to his son, A.P. (Avery). 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm primarily for the reasons 

expressed in the thorough written opinion of Judge Michael Antoniewicz issued 

with the judgment.

Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED FINDING THAT 

[THE DIVISION] CONDUCTED A FAIR 

1

 For the sake of anonymity and because the initials are the same, we utilize the 

pseudonyms from defendant's brief to protect the parties and the child. See R.

1:38-3(d)(13). 
3

A-0664-19T2

INVESTIGATION RULING OUT S.J. AS A 

RELATIVE PLACEMENT. 

II. [THE DIVISION]'S DUAL USE OF DR. DYER TO 

TESTIFY AGAINST ANTHONY AND TO 

CONDUCT AN EVALUATION OF S.J. AS PART OF 

A FAIR INVESTIGATION INTO RELATIVE 

PLACEMENT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

(NOT RAISED BELOW).

III. THE [TRIAL] COURT IMPERMISSIBLY 

ALLOWED ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE 

RELATING TO [ANTHONY]'S JUVENILE 

RECORD, WHICH VIOLATES N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60. 

 Anthony is the biological father of Avery, born in November 2015. 

Avery's mother, A.W. (Allison), surrendered her parental rights to the resource 

family in 2018 and is not a party to this appeal. The Division first became 

involved with this family when Avery was born due to Allison's prior reports of 

domestic violence. Our review of the record reveals Anthony has a lengthy 

history of instability due to criminality, substance abuse, and psychiatric 

problems. Avery was initially removed from the care of his parents by the 

Division when they were incarcerated.

At the time of their arrests, the parents left Avery with Anthony's mother.

When the Division learned that the paternal grandmother was ineligible for 

Avery's placement, the Division conducted an emergency removal pursuant to 

N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.29. At three months old, Avery was placed in a non-relative 
4

A-0664-19T2

resource home, where he remains. The Division later explored placing Avery 

with numerous members of Anthony's family but ruled each one out. In June 

2017, Frank Dyer, PhD, conducted a psychological evaluation of Anthony at the 

Bergen County Jail. Due to restrictions at the jail, Dr. Dyer could not conduct 

a bonding evaluation at that time. After reviewing Anthony's criminal history, 

Dr. Dyer opined that Anthony minimized his problematic history, and that his 

substance abuse was significant and would impact his ability to appropriately 

care for Avery. Psychological testing revealed that Anthony suffered from

anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression. His responses were 

indicative of bipolar disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

Dr. Dyer conducted a bonding evaluation with Avery and his resource 

parents, with whom he had been placed since he was three months old. Dr. Dyer 

concluded that Avery was securely bonded to his resource parents. Dr. Dyer 

opined that because Avery only saw Anthony on a weekly basis, Avery would

not suffer any serious or long-term harm if contact with Anthony ceased. Dr. 

Dyer ultimately stated that Avery "should not be allowed to linger in the 

uncertain status of foster care while further attempts are made to rehabilitate the 

birth parents, in light of their multiple serious problems, lack of progress to date, 

and poor prognosis." 
5

A-0664-19T2

In November 2017, Anthony requested the Division consider S.J., his 

adult first cousin, as a relative placement. The Division withdrew its complaint 

in order to explore additional relative placements for Avery but found no relative 

placements willing or able to take responsibility for the care and custody of the 

child. Based on our review of the record, we reject Anthony's argument that 

the Division failed to conduct a fair investigation. Anthony was released from 

prison in December 2018. He stopped communicating with the Division case 

worker and had not visited his child beyond January 2019. He did not attend 

the trial. 

On September 26, 2019, Judge Antoniewicz issued a written opinion

terminating Anthony's parental rights to Avery and entered a judgment of 

guardianship. Judge Antoniewicz gave thoughtful attention to the importance 

of permanency and stability from the perspective of Avery's needs, and found 

the Division had established by clear and convincing evidence all four prongs 

of the best-interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), which permits termination of 

parental rights. In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347-48 (1999). 

In this appeal, our review of the judge's decision is limited. We defer to 

his expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-13 

(1998), and we are bound by his factual findings so long as they are supported 
6

A-0664-19T2

by sufficient credible evidence, N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 

189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (citing In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 

188 (App. Div. 1993)).

We add the following comments to address Anthony's second and third 

arguments. Anthony claims that the court improperly admitted evidence relating 

to his juvenile records. His counsel objected on the basis of relevance. Even if 

we were to agree, we consider this harmless error. Furthermore, Anthony did 

not challenge the second prong of the best-interest test.

Anthony also argues for the first time here that it was erroneous for the 

Division to use Dr. Dyer's opinion to support its determination to rule out S.J.

as a relative placement. Anthony asserts that Dr. Dyer's assessments should not 

be used in a dual role. Issues that were not raised at trial "will ordinarily not be 

considered on appeal unless they are jurisdictional in nature or substantially 

implicate the public interest." Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 

N.J. 328, 339 (2010).

We conclude the factual findings of Judge Antoniewicz are fully 

supported by the record, and the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are 

unassailable.

Affirmed.