### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 0664

- 19T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CH ILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plainti ff

- Respondent,

v. A.P.,
Defendant

- Appellant.

______________ ___________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.P., a m inor.

______________ ___________

Submitted October 1, 2020

– Decided
Before Judges Fuentes, Whipple , and Firko. On appeal from t he 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be bind ing upon any court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.

October 30 , 20202 A

- 0664

- 19T2 of counsel; Bruce P. Lee, Designated Counsel, on t he 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 mi nor ( Meredith A lexis 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), 1 appeals from a September 26, 2019 , judgment in favor of the New Je rsey 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 An to niewicz 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)(1 3).3 A

- 0664

- 19T2 INVESTIGATION RULING OUT S.J. AS A RELATIVE PLACEME NT.
II. [ THE DIVISION] ' S DUAL USE OF DR. DYER T O 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 [ANTHON Y] ' 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 ) , surrender ed her parental rights to the resource family in 2018 and is not a party to this appea l. 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 psychia tr ic 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 A nthony's mother. When the Division learned that the paternal grand mother was i n e ligible 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

- relative4 A

- 0664

- 19T2

resource home, where he remains. T he Division later explored placing Avery with numerous m em bers of Anthony's family but ruled each one out. In June 2017, Frank Dyer , PhD, conducted a psychological evaluation of Anthony at the
B ergen County Jail. Due to restrictions at the jail, Dr. Dyer could not conduct a bonding evaluation at that time. A ft er 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 Antho ny suffered from anxiety, post

- traumatic stress disorder , and depression. His responses were
indicative of b ipolar d isorder and a ntisocial personality disorder. Dr. Dyer conducted a bonding evaluation with Avery and his resource parents, with whom he had be en placed since he was three months old. Dr. Dyer concluded that Avery was securely bonded to his resource parents. Dr. Dyer

o pined that because Avery only saw Anthony on a weekly basis, Avery would not suffer any serious or long

- term harm if contact w it h 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 progr es s to date, and poor prognosis."5 A

- 0664

- 19T2

I n November 2017, Anthony requested the Division consider S.J. , his
adult first cousin , as a relative placement. T he Division withdrew its complaint in order to explore additional relative placements for Avery but found no r elative 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 priso n 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
terminat ing Anthony's parental r ig hts to Avery and entered a judgment of guardianship. Judge Antoniewicz gave thoughtful attention to th e importance of permanency and stability from the perspective of Avery 's needs, and found the Division had established by clear and convincing evidence a ll four prongs
of the best

- interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C

- 15.1(a), which permits termination of parenta l 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
h is ex pertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare , 154 N.J. 394, 411

- 13 (1998), and we are bound by h is factual findings so long as they are supported6 A

- 0664

- 19T2

by sufficient credible evidence, N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M. , 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (c it ing In re Guardianship of J.T. , 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)). We add the following commen ts to address Anthony's second and third arguments

. Anthony claims that the court improperly admitted evidence relating to his juvenile records

. His co unsel 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 f or the
Division to use Dr. Dyer 's opinion to support its determination to rule out S.J.
as a rel ative placement. Anthony assert s that Dr. Dyer 's assessments should not
be used in a dual role. Issues that were not raised at trial "will ordinarily not be

c on sidered on appeal unless they are jurisdictional in nature or substantially implicate the publ ic 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.