RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0967-16T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF

CHILD PROTECTION AND

PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

J.L.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

N.S.,

Defendant.

_______________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP

OF J.L., Jr. and K.L., Minors.

_______________________________________

Submitted September 13, 2018 – Decided September 

Before Judges Reisner 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

24, 2018
2

A-0967-16T3

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, 

Docket No. FG-16-0098-15.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Dianne Glenn, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Jessica M. Steinglass, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief). 

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minors (Lisa M. Black, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant J.L. appeals from an August 10, 2016 order terminating his 

parental rights to his two children, J.L., Jr. and K.L., and an October 31, 2016 

order denying his reconsideration motion. After a four-day trial, during which 

both parents testified, Judge Richard M. Freid terminated J.L.'s parental rights, 

finding that as to J.L., the Division of Child Protection and Permanency 

(Division) had satisfied all four prongs of the best interests of the child test set 

forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). On the other hand, Judge Freid determined 

that the children's mother, co-defendant N.S., had successfully completed the 

services offered to her, and had made significant progress in overcoming her 
3

A-0967-16T3

parenting deficits. Accordingly, the judge found that the Division did not 

satisfy the second and fourth prongs with respect to N.S.1 

On this appeal, J.L. raises two issues, which he presents in the following 

points:

THE AUGUST 10, 2016, JUDGMENT OF 

GUARDIANSHIP SHOULD BE REVERSED 

BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT MISAPPLIED THE 

LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF THE "BEST INTEREST 

OF THE CHILD STANDARD", N.J.S.A. 30:4C15.1(a), AS THE DIVISION DID NOT PRESENT 

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AT THE 

GUARDIANSHIP TRIAL THAT THERE WERE NO 

ALTERNATIVES TO TERMINATION OF 

PARENTAL RIGHTS AND THAT TERMINATION 

OF J.L.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD NOT DO 

MORE HARM THAN GOOD TO [J.L. Jr.] AND 

[K.L.].

Prong Three. The trial [court] erred in its 

legal conclusion that there were no 

alternatives to termination of parental 

rights as it provided an alternative for 

N.S. and reopened the protective services 

litigation to allow N.S. additional time to 

complete services to effectuate 

reunification.

Prong Four. The trial [court] erred in its 

legal conclusion that termination of J.L.'s 

parental rights will not do more harm than 

 

1

 The Division's brief advises us that in 2017, the Division filed another 

guardianship complaint seeking termination of N.S.'s parental rights. While 

we note this information, it is not a factor in our decision here. 
4

A-0967-16T3

good as it reopened the protective services 

litigation for N.S. with the goal of 

reunification and the children will not 

receive any benefit by severing the

parental relationship with J.L. 

In essence, J.L. argues that it was unfair for the trial court to give N.S. 

more time to receive services toward the goal of reuniting with the children, 

while denying him the same opportunity. He also contends that termination of 

his parental rights was not in the children's best interests. After reviewing the 

record, we agree with Judge Freid that the two parents were not similarly 

situated. We also agree with Judge Freid that termination of J.L.'s parental 

rights was in the children's best interests, regardless of whether N.S. retained 

her parental rights. In fact, N.S.'s willingness to end her relationship with J.L., 

and raise the children without him, weighed in favor of giving her more time. 

We affirm for the reasons stated in the judge's seventy-page written opinion 

issued on August 10, 2016, and his October 31, 2016 oral opinion denying 

reconsideration. J.L.'s appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to 

warrant further discussion, beyond the following brief comments. R. 2:11-

3(e) (1 ) (E). 

Judge Freid's opinion reviewed the evidence in great detail. A summary 

will suffice here. J.L. is cognitively impaired and has severe mental illness, 
5

A-0967-16T3

which can cause him to engage in inappropriate, threatening, and sometimes 

violent conduct toward those around him. He has a history of engaging in 

domestic violence and drug abuse. Over a period of several years, J.L. 

repeatedly failed to cooperate with the Division's efforts to provide him with 

treatment, and failed to take his psychiatric medication. He sometimes 

behaved inappropriately toward the children at supervised visits, eventually 

leading to the suspension of his visitation opportunities. The Division 

presented unrebutted expert testimony that J.L. was incapable of safely 

parenting the children and would require years of successful therapy before he 

might become able to care for them. 

On the other hand, by the time of the trial, N.S. had completed a drug 

treatment program and other services, and she was committed to raising the 

children on her own. In fact, the evidence supported a conclusion that she 

could only safely parent the children if she was not co-parenting with J.L., due 

to his mental illness and history of domestic violence. 2 Neither child had a 

secure parent-child bond with J.L. They both had a secure bond with their 

 

2 During the October 31, 2016 oral argument of J.L.'s reconsideration motion, 

his counsel candidly advised Judge Freid that another Family Part judge had 

recently entered a final restraining order against J.L. based on domestic 

violence against N.S. 
6

A-0967-16T3

resource parents, who could mitigate any harm that might result from 

termination of J.L.'s parental rights. 

Our review of Judge Freid'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., 

217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). We defer to the judge's evaluation of witness 

credibility, and to his expertise in family court matters. Id. at 552-53. 

Because the record contains substantial credible evidence to support Judge 

Freid's findings, there is no basis for us to disturb his well-reasoned decision. 

While we do not doubt that J.L. loves his children, he is not capable of caring 

for them. They need, and are entitled to, the security of a permanent home, 

either with their resource parents or with N.S. 

Affirmed.