RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-3769-16T1

 A-3770-16T1

 A-2432-17T1

 A-2434-17T1

NEW JERSEY DIVISION 

OF CHILD PROTECTION 

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

D.V. and A.B.-L.,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

G.O.,

Defendant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

GUARDIANSHIP OF J.V., 

J.L.-V., K.L.-V. and B.L.-V., 

Minors.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-3769-16T1

Submitted September 24, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher, Accurso and Rose.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, 

Docket Nos. FN-07-0344-16 and FG-07-0181-17.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant D.V. (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel; Jennifer M. Kurtz, Designated 

Counsel, on the briefs).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant A.B.-L. (Ifeoma Antonia Odunlami, 

Designated Counsel, on the briefs in A-3770-16; Mark 

Edward Kleiman, Designated Counsel, on the briefs in 

A-2434-17).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jason Wade Rockwell, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Roman Guzik, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the briefs in A-3769-16 and A-3770-16; 

Casey Jonathan Woodruff, Deputy Attorney General, 

on the briefs in A-2432-17 and A-2434-17).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

minors (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel; Todd S. Wilson, Designated 

Counsel, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

D.V. (Donna) and A.B.-L. (Albert) appeal from a finding that they 

abused and neglected then three-year-old J.V. (Jaden), two-year-old J.L.-V. 

(Jamie), and two-month-old K.L.-V. (Katie) and from the subsequent 

November 6, 2019
3

A-3769-16T1

termination of their parental rights to those children, as well as to B.L.-V. 

(Becky) born after commencement of the guardianship action.1 Having 

consolidated the appeals for purposes of this opinion, we now affirm both 

judgments, essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Paganelli in his 

thorough and well-reasoned opinions of November 30, 2016 and January 12, 

2018.

The facts are fully set forth in Judge Paganelli's opinions and do not 

require repeating here. We note only the essentials, that is that the family first 

came to the attention of the Division in 2015, when Albert left Jaden and 

Jamie alone when he went to the liquor store, and kicked Donna in the stomach 

and back when they argued about it afterwards. She was then pregnant with 

Katie. Albert denied striking Donna or being drunk when alleged to have done 

it and refused to cooperate with the investigation. The Division closed its case 

after Donna assured the investigator she was no longer living with Albert and 

signed a family agreement promising she would not let him act as a caretaker 

for the children in the future.

 

1

 We employ fictitious names to protect the children's privacy. Although 

Donna and Albert are the parents of the three youngest children, Jaden, the 

eldest, is not Albert's son. Jaden's biological father did not participate in the 

litigation in the trial court and is not a party to the appeal.
4

A-3769-16T1

By early 2016, however, the couple was back together, and Donna was 

working nights. When Donna left Albert to watch the children one night while 

she worked, he broke eight of Katie's ribs, her femur and inflicted a serious 

brain injury that left her hospitalized for a month and in a residential care 

facility for the next twenty months. 

At the fact-finding hearing in the subsequent abuse and neglect 

proceeding, the Division admitted defendants' statements to the police about 

Katie's injuries. Although both Donna and Albert initially denied that Albert

was alone with the children when Katie was hurt, they eventually admitted he 

was watching all three children at the time. After suggesting several other 

explanations for Katie's condition, Albert finally told police that Katie had 

been restless, and Jaden and Jamie were jumping around and screaming as he 

tried to soothe the baby by rocking her. When Katie wouldn't stop crying, and 

the older children wouldn't settle down, he became upset and desperate and 

started rocking Katie harder and squeezing her tighter. As the situation wore 

on, he grew tense and started shaking Katie until she finally stopped crying a 

few minutes later.

Donna told police that when she got home, after 3:30 a.m., Jaden, who 

was "non-verbal," said "dad," gesturing to Albert, and made a shaking motion 
5

A-3769-16T1

with his hands. The next morning, Katie's eyes were rolled back in her head 

and she was clenching and unclenching her fists. Donna suggested taking her 

to the hospital but Albert resisted. Although both Donna and Albert had 

previously witnessed Jaden having a seizure, they delayed taking Katie to the 

hospital for well over a day. When they finally took Katie to the emergency 

room, her eyes were turning in circles and the doctors could not control her 

seizures. 

Judge Paganelli accepted the testimony of the Division's expert, the 

medical director of the Metro Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Center, Dr. 

Weiner, board certified in pediatrics and child abuse pediatrics, who examined 

Katie and consulted with her treating doctors. She opined the child's injuries 

likely resulted from a single episode of forceful shaking, either from the 

shaking itself or, in the case of the rib fractures, from squeezing, and that 

defendants medically neglected Katie by failing to take her to the hospital 

sooner. 

The judge rejected the opinion of defendants' pediatric neurologist that 

the rocking and shaking Albert described would not have caused the extent of 

Katie's brain injury, and was thus likely merely coincidental to meningitis, 

encephalitis, or cortical venous thrombosis. Judge Paganelli noted none of 
6

A-3769-16T1

Katie's doctors had diagnosed her with any of those conditions, and they were 

not apparent in the child's lab work. Defendant's neurologist had also not 

examined Katie, nor consulted with her treating doctors and did not believe 

abusive head trauma was a legitimate diagnosis, despite its recognition by the 

American Academy of Pediatrics.

Defendants' pediatric radiologist agreed with the Division's expert that 

the injuries to Katie's chest and ribs were likely caused by compression of her 

rib cage, but he concluded the injuries were more likely caused by "rough 

handling" rather than forcible shaking. Although Judge Paganelli found the 

radiologist's testimony as to the nature of Katie's injuries generally credible, he 

rejected his conclusion that they resulted from rough handling as inconsistent 

with Albert's description of events.

Having given the parties advance notice in accordance with New Jersey 

Division of Youth and Family Services v. R.D., 207 N.J. 88, 120 (2011), that 

he would make his findings pursuant to the higher Title Thirty "clear and 

convincing" standard if supported by the proofs, Judge Paganelli found the 

Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that defendants had abused 

and neglected all three children. 
7

A-3769-16T1

Specifically, the judge found inadequate supervision by both Donna and 

Albert based on admissions in their statements to the police that they 

occasionally left all three children alone in order to take out the trash or buy 

food when the two toddlers were asleep or watching television. The judge 

noted the children were described by witnesses "as aggressive, fighting badly, 

screaming, throwing things, fighting over the television, playing hard, jumping 

on furniture," and often "needed to be separated." Although noting such 

"behavior may be somewhat expected for children of this age group," the judge 

found that fact, and that the children couldn't yet talk, "offers the very reason 

why the children cannot be left unsupervised by their parents." The judge also 

found Donna improperly supervised the children by leaving them alone with 

Albert after acknowledging he was not an appropriate supervisor for the 

children in the family agreement she entered into with the Division.

Judge Paganelli found Albert physically abused Katie by deliberately 

causing her "extensive brain and retinal injuries" as well as bone fractures 

based on Albert's admissions of squeezing and shaking Katie, the objective 

proof of those injuries and Dr. Weiner's testimony that Albert's actions caused 

Katie's injuries. The judge also found Albert exposed Jaden and Jamie to a 

substantial risk of harm by physically abusing Katie while caring for the older 
8

A-3769-16T1

children as witnessed by Jaden. The judge found both Donna and Albert

medically neglected Katie by their delay in getting her to the hospital after 

seeing her eyes turned up and the abnormal clenching of her hands.

Judge Paganelli applied those clear and convincing findings, with the 

exception of the "statement" attributed to Jaden of Albert shaking Katie, see

N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. T.U.B., 450 N.J. Super. 210, 213-14 

(App. Div. 2017), to find the Division proved the first prong of the best 

interests standard in the subsequent guardianship trial, that the children's 

health and development has been endangered by the parental relationship. See

N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1). 

He found the Division proved the second prong as to Donna, that the 

parent was unable or unwilling to eliminate the harm, N.J.S.A. 30:4C15.1(a)(2), based on the testimony of the Division's neuropsychologist, Dr. 

Mack, that "there is an organic etiology to [Donna's] poor judgment" and 

maladaptive behavioral patterns, including her inability to separate from Albert

because she claimed she "had no one else to help her," and still did "not know 

if he ha[d] done anything wrong" with regard to Katie, despite overwhelming 

proof of the injuries he caused the two-month-old. The judge also accepted 

Dr. Mack's view that the prognosis for Donna becoming an independent 
9

A-3769-16T1

minimally effective parent "is extremely poor based on her neuropsychological 

and psychological makeup." 

The judge found Albert was unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm he 

posed to the children because he denied any responsibility for Katie's injuries 

in his interview with the Division's psychologist, Dr. Dyer. Dr. Dyer reported 

Albert claimed Katie's bones were not actually broken and that her injuries 

may have been caused by a blood disorder or by restlessly moving around 

excessively.

Judge Paganelli found the Division easily proved it had made reasonable 

efforts to help Donna and Albert correct the circumstances leading to the 

children's removal under the third prong, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(3), although 

Dr. Mack opined there were no services that could make either a minimally 

effective parent in the foreseeable future, and found no alternatives to 

termination of their parental rights. 

As to the fourth prong, that termination not do more harm than good, 

N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4), the judge relied on the bonding evaluations 

conducted by Dr. Dyer. Dr. Dyer found no bond between either Donna or 

Albert and Katie and Becky as both had been removed from the care of their 

parents at an extremely early age. Becky, only ten months old at the time of 
10 A-3769-16T1

the evaluation, had never lived with them, and Katie was not yet three months 

old when Albert injured her. Both children were in the care of families 

wanting to adopt them, in Katie's case, a nurse who had cared for her during 

her twenty months in a residential care facility. 

Dr. Dyer concluded Katie's "emotional needs would be more adequately 

addressed by a permanent caretaker other than her birth mother." As for 

Becky, Dr. Dyer believed reunifying her with Donna before her first birthday 

when an attachment to her resource parent would begin to develop would be 

the best option, but only if Donna could separate from Albert and manage to 

become a minimally fit parent within that timeframe. 

The situation with Jaden and Jamie, who had been placed together, was 

more complicated. Both children had an attachment to Donna, and Jamie was 

also attached to Albert. Dr. Dyer found Jamie also had an attachment to her 

resource parent. He opined that terminating Jamie's relationship with either 

Donna or the resource father would likely cause her "a similarly distressing 

loss," less with Albert, which the resource father would be able to mitigate, but 

Donna, because of her psychological problems, would not. 

Dr. Dyer found Jaden had also formed a "very close emotional tie" to his 

resource father, who provided the child with "appropriate structure, 
11 A-3769-16T1

nurturance, positive role modeling, physical safety, and emotional security,"

but that Donna remained Jaden's "central parental love object." Although Dr. 

Dyer acknowledged that reunifying Jaden with Donna would confer some 

therapeutic benefit, he noted Jaden did not receive adequate stimulation and 

structure when he lived with defendants. He accordingly concluded that

reunification would likely cause Jaden to "suffer a regression in learning and 

behavior due to [Donna's] persisting problems," adding that a failed 

reunification would be an "absolute disaster" for the child. Termination of 

Jaden's relationship with Donna, on the other hand, would likely have a 

"disorganizing and distressing effect on [him] that runs the risk of inflicting 

long-term or serious psychological harm," which Dr. Dyer believed Jaden's 

resource father would be able to mitigate, but not eliminate completely.

Donna and Albert did not present an expert to counter those testifying on 

behalf of the Division and did not offer any other witnesses. Neither testified. 

Based on the bonding evaluations, Judge Paganelli found "clearly and 

convincingly" that termination of Donna's and Albert's parental rights as to all 

four children "will not do more harm than good." The judge noted that Dr. 

Dyer's opinion that reunification with Donna should be considered for Becky 

and Jaden was "tethered to [Donna] being able to extract herself from [Albert] 
12 A-3769-16T1

and, more importantly, address her problems," neither of which the court 

concluded was remotely likely. Concluding based on the expert testimony that 

neither Donna nor Albert would ever likely become minimally fit parents, the 

judge found "neither parent can offer the children the safe and stable 

placement they deserve."

Defendants appeal, arguing the court erred in concluding they abused or 

neglected Jaden, Jamie and Katie and that the Division failed to prove all four 

prongs of the best interests standard by clear and convincing evidence. The 

Law Guardian joins the Division in urging that we affirm both judgments. 

We find defendants' various arguments, all of which are premised 

entirely on alleged errors in the judge's fact finding, utterly without merit. 2 

 

2

 Although both defendants assert their statements to police were coerced and, 

to that extent, unreliable, Donna adds that the neuropsychological condition 

diagnosed by the Division's expert in the guardianship matter was particularly 

relevant to a determination of the reliability of her statement. She further 

contends she could not have litigated the issue in the abuse and neglect matter

because the evidence was not yet available, and was precluded from doing so 

in the guardianship case based on collateral estoppel. We do not address this 

argument, which she raises for the first time on appeal despite an adequate 

opportunity to investigate and raise the issue in the trial court, see Nieder v. 

Royal Indemnity Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973), and only explicitly in her 

reply brief, thereby compounding the problem, see L.J. Zucca, Inc. v. Allen 

Bros. Wholesale Distribs. Inc., 434 N.J. Super. 60, 87 (App. Div. 2014) ("An 

appellant may not raise new contentions for the first time in a reply brief."). 

We note only that the evidence in the record on Donna's neuropsychological 
13 A-3769-16T1

The trial court "has the opportunity to make first-hand credibility judgments 

about the witnesses who appear on the stand; it has a 'feel of the case' that can 

never be realized by a review of the cold record." N.J. Div. of Youth & 

Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008) (citation omitted). We are not 

free to overturn the factual findings and legal conclusions of a trial judge 

"unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or 

inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as 

to offend the interests of justice." Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of 

Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974) (citation omitted). 

Because the trial judge's findings that Donna and Albert abused and 

neglected Jaden, Jamie and Katie, and that the Division proved all four prongs 

of the best interests standard as to all three children and Becky by clear and 

convincing evidence have that support in the record, we affirm the judgments 

in both matters substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Paganelli in 

his thorough and thoughtful opinions accompanying each.

Affirmed.

 

condition is limited to its effect on her ability to parent. There is nothing in 

the record as to its implications, if any, for the reliability of her statements to 

police.