RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2519-18T1

NEW JERSEY DIVISION 

OF CHILD PROTECTION 

AND PERMANENCY, 

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v. 

C.K., 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and

J.L.,

Defendant. 

___________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

GUARDIANSHIP OF N.K., 

 a Minor.

___________________________

Submitted November 20, 2019 – Decided 

Before Judges Koblitz, Gooden Brown and Mawla.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 6, 2019
2

A-2519-18T1

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FG-02-0032-18.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Albert Manuel Afonso, Designated Counsel, 

on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Michelle J. Mc Brian, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief). 

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minor (David Ben Valentin, Assistant 

Deputy Public Defender, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM

Defendant C.K. (Cybil)1appeals2from a January 29, 2019 Family Part 

order terminating her parental rights to her now five-year-old daughter N.K. 

(Nicole), who lived with her maternal grandparents for almost the first two years 

of her life before eventually being placed with the resource family she currently 

lives with. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Magali M. 

Francois in her thorough oral opinion issued with the order.

1 We use initials and fictitious names to preserve the privacy of the parties. R.

1:38-3(d)(12).

2 The father, J.L., was incarcerated and does not appeal.
3

A-2519-18T1

The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's opinion. A summary will 

suffice here. Cybil placed Nicole with Cybil's parents upon birth. When Nicole

was almost two years old, she was found wandering in the parking lot adjacent 

to her grandmother's apartment building. The grandmother had serious mental 

health issues and was unable to safeguard the young child. At that time, Cybil

had long-standing substance abuse problems and was wanted for a violation of 

probation, for which she was subsequently reincarcerated. Cybil was again 

incarcerated at the time of the three-day guardianship trial due to an incident 

resulting in her discharge from a drug program.

The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) presented 

evidence that Cybil did not comply with drug rehabilitation or psychiatric 

therapy services. The Division and Law Guardian's experts opined that Nicole 

would benefit from the termination of Cybil's parental rights. Nicole was not 

securely bonded to her mother, had not bonded with her grandparents, but had a 

secure bond with her resource parents, who wished to adopt her.

In her comprehensive opinion, Judge Francois found that the Division had 

proven all four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and that 

termination of defendants' parental rights was in Nicole's best interests. On this 

appeal, our review of the trial judge's decision is limited. We defer to her 
4

A-2519-18T1

expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998), 

and we are bound by her factual findings so long as "they are supported by 

'adequate, substantial and credible evidence.'" N.J. Div. of Youth & Family 

Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (quoting In re Guardianship of J.T., 

269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)). After reviewing the record, we 

conclude that the trial judge's factual findings are fully supported by the record 

and, in light of those facts, her legal conclusions are unassailable.

Cybil contends that the trial court erred in finding that the Division had 

proved the third and fourth factors of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), because it did not

recommend placing Nicole with her mother in a "Mommy and Me" program 

after Cybil entered the Straight and Narrow long-term inpatient drug program 

through Drug Court special probation, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14. After the Straight 

and Narrow program, Cybil participated in several other drug programs without 

success. Given Cybil's serious psychiatric and substance-abuse problems, her 

failure to ever serve as a caretaker to Nicole, and the Mommy and Me program's 

inability to provide strict supervision, we do not view the decision not to allow 

participation in the program as error. 

Affirmed.