RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-3585-18T4

 A-3586-18T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION

OF CHILD PROTECTION

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

A.H. and J.A.L.,

Defendants-Appellants.

__________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF C.M.L.H.

and J.L., JR.,

Minors.

__________________________

Submitted May 18, 2020 - Decided June 17, 2020

Before Judges Rothstadt and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket 

No. FG-15-0048-18.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3585-18T4

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant A.H. (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel; Dianne Glenn, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant J.A.L. (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public 

Defender, of counsel; Caitlin Avis Mc Laughlin, 

Designated Counsel, on the briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Salima E. Burke, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minor C.M.L.H. (Meredith Alexis Pollock, 

Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Danielle Ruiz, 

Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minor J.A.L., Jr. (Meredith Alexis Pollock, 

Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Todd S. Wilson, 

Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, A.H. (Amy)1and J.A.L. (Jim) appeal from 

an April 8, 2019 order terminating their parental rights to their two children and 

awarding the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) 

guardianship over both children. On appeal, Jim argues that the Division failed 

1

 Fictitious names are used to protect the privacy of the parties and the 

confidentiality of the record. See R. 1:38-3(d)(12). 
3

A-3585-18T4

to satisfy each prong of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), while 

Amy contests only the judge's findings with respect to the part of prong three 

that concerns the Division's efforts to reunite the family. Amy also argues that 

the trial judge abused his discretion in denying her request for an adjournment 

after she expressed dissatisfaction with her assigned attorney on the first day of 

trial. We affirm substantially for the reasons given by the trial judge.

I.

This case involves two children, C.M.L.H. (Cindy), born in 2012, and J.L., 

Jr., (John), born in 2014. Cindy and John have been placed together with 

resource parents since January 2017.

The Division became involved with this family in March 2014. Amy was 

eighteen years old, and Jim was thirty years old. They were living at Jim's 

father's home with Cindy, and Amy was about three months pregnant with John. 

The Division received a report from Amy's probation officer that Amy tested 

positive for heroin, so it implemented a safety protection plan (SPP), requiring 

Amy and Cindy to move in with Amy's mother and sister. During Amy's 

incarceration for her probation violation, she spoke with a caseworker and 

agreed to attend a substance abuse program, other than a Mommy and Me 
4

A-3585-18T4

program. Soon after, the Division dropped the SPP and arranged for Amy's 

mother and sister to care for Cindy. 

The Division arranged for Amy and Jim to attend substance abuse 

evaluations, and both were recommended for an intensive outpatient program 

(IOP). Amy was required to attend Women in Recovery Now at Preferred 

Behavioral Health, which also provided parenting education and transportation 

assistance, and Jim was referred to Seashore Family Services (SFS) and 

provided with bus passes. Caseworker Jenise Williams continued home visits, 

reminding the parents to attend their IOPs and urging them to reach out to 

Women, Infants, and Children, NJ FamilyCare, and Ocean Health Initiatives.

By June 2014, Amy moved back to Jim's father's home, and she eventually 

stopped attending her program. When the caseworker visited the home, after 

Jim tested positive for buprenorphine and THC, Amy and Jim agreed to attend 

intakes at SFS, remain substance free while caring for Cindy, and maintain a 

home free from substance abuse. During another home visit, Amy informed the 

caseworker that Jim did not want to attend SFS because he was "having issues 

with some of the participants," so she instructed Amy to have Jim discuss the 

issue with his counselor. Jim stopped attending SFS and was discharged, but 

soon after, he began a new IOP at Ocean Mental Health (OMH) and obtained a 
5

A-3585-18T4

prescription for Suboxone. Amy continued attending SFS and was 

recommended for a level one outpatient program in October 2014. She 

successfully completed the program in March 2015, but the Division remained 

concerned about the family, as Jim stopped taking his Suboxone for a while, 

stopped attending OMH, and relapsed on cocaine and benzodiazepines. 

In addition to the above, the Division assisted the family by providing a

toddler bed and a crib, ensuring the parents had proper supplies and information 

about caring for their children, and transporting the parents to the Board of 

Social Services (BOSS) and to their programs. 

The caseworker continued home visits and noted that the children 

appeared to be doing well, but there were issues regarding the children's dental 

health. Amy and Jim delayed taking Cindy to the dentist to address her bottle 

rot, so multiple appointments were needed to repair her teeth, and she eventually 

needed to have her teeth removed. By December 2015, the caseworker noted 

that John's teeth appeared to have "slight[] bottle rot," and when Amy and Jim 

finally brought him to the dentist in May 2016, the dentist diagnosed him with 

dental disease.

Meanwhile, the family moved around for several months, raising concerns 

about the stability of the home. The Division offered to pay for a security 
6

A-3585-18T4

deposit if Amy and Jim identified a place to rent, as long as Jim was able to pay 

the rent. The caseworker also instructed the parents to place their names on a 

waiting list for low-income housing and to reach out to BOSS and local 

churches. In February 2016, the family moved to a motel, and while Jim earned 

enough to afford rent, he had not attended another substance abuse evaluation, 

inhibiting the Division from assisting with a security deposit. Around the same 

time, Jim's doctor stopped prescribing Suboxone because he continued to ask 

for extensions on his prescription and reschedule appointments. A few months 

later Jim finally attended an evaluation and was referred for partial

hospitalization.

During May 2016 home visits, the caseworker found the family's home to 

be in a deplorable condition, noting dirty sheets and dog feces lying around. 

Thereafter, Amy tested positive for morphine, and Jim tested positive for 

buprenorphine and opiates. The Division implemented another SPP, requiring 

Amy to move to her grandmother's home, both parents to be supervised with the 

children, and the children to attend daycare. The family relocated accordingly, 

but a home visit revealed that Amy had been left alone with the children. 

In July 2016, a court order was issued, granting the Division care and 

supervision of Cindy and John and requiring Amy and Jim to comply with the 
7

A-3585-18T4

SPP, follow up with the children's health appointments, and cooperate with all 

services recommended by the Division. The Division referred them to Family 

Preservation Services (FPS), "a short-term intensive, in-home family education 

and crisis intervention program with the primary objective of prevention of outof-home placement by enhancing family functioning and problem solving." 

While Amy and Jim showed some improvement in parenting and household 

management skills, their cooperation fluctuated, and their compliance was 

minimal. Additionally, they initially refused to send the children to daycare and 

only agreed to for a short time, after the FPS worker convinced them to comply. 

Meanwhile, Amy began an IOP at SFS in August 2016, but she was 

discharged in December after she stopped attending. Jim also failed to complete

the programs he was ordered to attend at OMH earlier in the year. 

On October 14, 2016, Amy met with David R. Brandwein, Psy.D, for a 

psychological evaluation. Dr. Brandwein found that Amy "lacked insight 

related to her parenting deficits and minimized and rationalized the Division's 

concerns about her substance use and parenting capacity." She "failed to 

understand the impact of missed medical and other appointments on her 

children's physical health and developmental progression." Dr. Brandwein 

diagnosed Amy with unspecified opioid-related disorder, unspecified 
8

A-3585-18T4

adjustment disorder, histrionic personality patterns, and borderline intellectual 

functioning. He recommended that Amy complete a substance abuse treatment 

program, aftercare, random urine screening, and FPS services; complete an IOP; 

maintain sobriety for three months; and participate in short-term in-home 

therapy. 

The following months showed no improvement, as Jim continued to miss 

substance abuse evaluations and test positive for amphetamines and 

buprenorphine. He also refused to meet with Dr. Brandwein. Amy tested 

positive for morphine and amphetamines and was referred to SFS but she was 

discharged for failure to attend. The most notable concern was a neighbor's 

report to the Division in January 2017 that one of the children drowned the 

family kitten in a bathtub after they were left unsupervised, prompting the 

Division to conduct an emergency removal of the children. Thereafter, the 

Division was granted custody of the children, and it placed them in a nonrelative resource home. Cindy and John were enrolled in daycare and scheduled 

for medical and dental examinations and neurodevelopmental evaluations, 

which revealed that Cindy had vision and hearing problems, and John had 

hearing, dental, and speech problems. Appropriate treatments were arranged.
9

A-3585-18T4

Amy and Jim continued to show no signs of improvement. After Amy 

reported a domestic violence incident between the two, she was referred to 

domestic violence counseling and Jim to a domestic violence offenders program, 

but neither of them attended. They were both incarcerated multiple times, and 

when they were not, they were, at best, minimally compliant with drug 

screenings, substance abuse evaluations, and counseling programs that the 

Division scheduled. Further, their attendance at visitations was sporadic, 

prompting the judge to suspend visitation until therapeutic visitation was 

arranged. Neither parent met with the counselor, so their therapeutic visitation 

slot was closed. The Division re-referred them, and they were placed on a 

waiting list. Amy and Jim did not see Cindy and John for several months.

The Division struggled to stay in contact with the parents for months. 

When the caseworker learned that they were not doing well and had no place to 

stay, she recommended that they stay at a shelter, but they declined. A couple 

weeks later, they visited the local Division office, and the caseworker told them 

they still had time to regain custody of their children if they made an effort to 

comply with the recommended programs. Amy agreed, and she and Jim 

submitted to drug screenings. Amy tested positive for cocaine and 

buprenorphine, and Jim for THC and buprenorphine.
10 A-3585-18T4

Thereafter, the Division informed the parents that they needed to comply 

with the recommendations, as it was considering transferring the case to the 

adoption unit. By early 2018, the parents made no progress, so the judge 

approved a permanency plan, and the Division filed a verified complaint for 

guardianship and assigned an adoption caseworker, Sandra Weber.

The family began therapeutic visitation, but visits were not consistent. 

Additionally problematic was the parents' positive drug screenings during some 

of the visits. Amy began an IOP at Daytop New Jersey but she her attendance 

was sporadic, and she was ultimately discharged with a recommendation for a 

higher level of care. In August, she was referred to OMH and began treatment 

a month later. Jim was also referred for another IOP, but he failed to attend. 

Meanwhile, Dr. Brandwein remained involved with the family. On June 

4, 2018, he completed another psychological evaluation of Amy, which revealed 

largely the same issues. He altered Amy's diagnosis to severe opioid use 

disorder, severe amphetamine use disorder, adult antisocial behavior, and victim 

of spouse or partner violence, while finding that the previous diagnoses of 

histrionic personality patterns and borderline intellectual functioning were 

accurate. Ultimately, he opined "that there has been no substantive change in 

[Amy's] psychological functioning and parenting capacity relative to the 
11 A-3585-18T4

previous examination, and . . . [Amy is not] currently [able] to provide 

independent care to her children." Because of her limited compliance with 

services and continued substance abuse, "the likelihood for [Amy] to be capable 

of independent care of her children in the foreseeable future is quite dismal." 

He recommended that the Division proceed with a permanency plan for the 

children "other than reunification . . . with [Amy]." 

On July 20, 2018, Dr. Brandwein conducted a bonding evaluation of the 

family. For thirty minutes, he observed Amy and Jim together with both

children, noting that the children were happy to see their parents and referred to 

them as "mommy" and "daddy." He then observed each parent alone with the 

children for twenty minutes, noting that both parents were appropriate with the 

children, but there were some concerns: John had a difficult time separating 

from Amy, "a sign of insecure attachment in a child his age;" and Jim "seemed 

overly focused [on] how [John] was different during the observations than he 

[had] been during parent-child visits," demonstrating a lack of flexibility in 

accommodate differences in a child's behavior. 

Based on his observations, he opined "that while the children do appear to 

be bonded to their birth parents, . . . [their] bond with them is insecure." He 

attributed this "to [Amy's and Jim's] long-term behavioral and emotional 
12 A-3585-18T4

instability as well as their absence from the children's lives at different points 

. . . due to their substance use, substance-related behavior, and repeated arrests 

and incarcerations." Insecure bonds "are unable to support either child 

throughout the remainder of their childhood and into adolescence and 

adulthood." Accordingly, he recommended that the children be allowed to 

"develop[] a relationship with adult caregivers committed to [their] 

permanency." The children would be most harmed by continuing to delay 

permanency "to allow their birth parents to do something they seem poorly 

motivated to achieve; that is, sobriety, stability, and the development of a 

lifestyle conducive to raising minor children." 

In September 2018, Cindy and John were moved to a new resource home, 

as the original resource family did not wish to adopt them. On November 10, 

2018, Dr. Brandwein conducted a bonding evaluation of the children with the 

new resource family, and he concluded that the children were "in the process of 

developing positive, supportive relationships with [the resource parents]." 

Further, he opined that the children's need for permanency was urgent, and

adoption was the best option to meet their needs.

The guardianship trial was held before Judge James M. Blaney on

February 27, February 28, and April 8, 2019. At the start of trial, neither Amy 
13 A-3585-18T4

nor Jim was present, but Amy finally arrived and stayed for a short period, 

leaving the room during much of Dr. Brandwein's testimony. 

Dr. Brandwein testified as to each his evaluations. When asked whether 

his opinions would change if he knew that Amy had been doing well with her 

treatment since December 2018, he opined that "non-compliance and further 

drug use [were] more likely than compliance of sobriety" because any recent 

compliance would only be based on behavior from a two-month period. He also

explained that even if the current resource parents did not adopt the children, his 

opinions would not change because the real concerns were about Amy's and 

Jim's abilities to care for their children. 

During Dr. Brandwein's testimony, Amy requested an adjournment, 

stating she was dissatisfied with her attorney. The judge denied her request:

Ma'am, your attorney has been representing you and 

will continue to represent you. You have the ability to 

hire your own attorney if you wish, but quite frankly 

you haven't even been present in this hearing for more 

than ten minutes and we've been going for over a halfhour. So I find it hard to understand even why you 

would even think that Ms. Kelly is not doing what she's 

supposed to be doing. She is, in this [c]ourt's opinion.

Thereafter, Amy left the courthouse. The judge denied her attorney's request 

for an adjournment, as there was no prior indication that Amy was dissatisfied 
14 A-3585-18T4

with her attorney; however, he did request that one of the caseworkers return the 

following day to allow Amy time to hire a new attorney if she wished. 

The trial continued, and the judge heard testimony from Williams and 

Weber, the Division caseworkers. At the end of the second day, the judge 

decided to leave the record open to allow Amy additional time to hire a private 

attorney and decide if she wanted to testify. On March 6, 2019, the judge issued 

an order requiring the Division to notify Amy and Jim "of their absolute right to 

present testimony and or evidence on their own behalf to the [c]ourt."

On April 8, 2019, Amy and Jim both appeared before Judge Blaney. Amy 

testified that she was presently involved with Justice Involved Services and 

attending an IOP at OMH. Three weeks earlier, she moved into a two-bedroom 

home with a friend nearby, and a week earlier, she began working at a hotel in 

Seaside. In addition, she continued to visit the children every other week.

Jim testified that he was incarcerated in Ocean County but would soon be 

released and had a job lined up. He had been attending visitations with Amy 

and was most consistent when he was not incarcerated. He acknowledged there 

had been "starts and stops with various services," explaining that homelessness, 

job loss, and changing court orders caused his noncompliance. 
15 A-3585-18T4

After hearing from Amy and Jim, the judge issued an oral decision, 

considering the four prongs of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). Under prong one, he

found that "the children were in significant danger from both parents," as the

parents were consistently noncompliant with the Division's recommendations

and court orders, and they continued using illicit substances and engaging in 

"[c]riminal, improper, and assaultive behaviors." They also failed to meet the

children's medical needs and could not provide stable housing. Under prong 

two, the judge found that "the children will suffer further delay if permanent 

placement is not resolved," given the parents' demonstrated lack of interest, their 

inability to address their substance abuse problems, their failure to meet the

children's medical needs, and their repeated incarceration. He also relied on Dr. 

Brandwein's opinion that the prognosis for either parent becoming able to 

independently care for their children was dismal. Under prong three, the judge 

found that the Division provided reasonable services, kept both parents updated 

throughout the case, explored kinship legal guardianship, and ruled out any of 

the parents' relatives. Finally, under prong four, the judge relied on Dr. 

Brandwein's opinion that the resource parents "had forged a loving and caring 

relationship with the two children . . . and would be able to provide a safe and 

stable home for . . . them into the future." 
16 A-3585-18T4

Based on his findings, the judge terminated Amy's and Jim's parental 

rights to Cindy and John and awarded the Division guardianship over both 

children. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Amy raises the following points:

[1.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT 

[THE DIVISION] MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF BY 

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ON ALL 

FOUR PRONGS OF THE BEST INTEREST TEST 

PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) BECAUSE 

[THE DIVISION'S] EVIDENCE WAS 

INSUFFICIENT ON PRONG THREE AS [IT] 

FAILED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE EFFORTS 

TO EFFECTUATE REUNIFICATION.

[2.] THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION 

WHEN IT DENIED AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE 

TRIAL AFTER [AMY] EXPRESSED 

DISSATISFACTION WITH CURRENT ASSIGNED 

COUNSEL AND WANTED TO RETAIN ANOTHER 

ATTORNEY.

Jim raises the following points:

[1.] THE DIVISION FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR 

AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT CINDY 

AND JOHN'S HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT HAD 

BEEN OR WILL CONTINUE TO BE ENDANGERED 

BY THE CONTINUATION OF THE PARENTAL 

RELATIONSHIP WITH [JIM].

[2.] THE DIVISION FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR 

AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT [JIM] IS 

UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO ELIMINATE THE 

HARM FACING THE CHILDREN OR IS UNABLE 
17 A-3585-18T4

OR UNWILLING TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND 

STABLE HOME FOR HIS CHILDREN.

[3.] THE DIVISION FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR 

AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT MADE 

REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE SERVICES 

TO ASSIST [JIM] CORRECT THE 

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE 

CHILDREN['S] REMOVAL.

[4.] THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN FINDING 

THAT TERMINATION WOULD DO MORE HAR[M] 

THAN GOOD AND THE DIVISION FAILED TO 

SHOW THAT A DELAY OF PERMANENT 

PLACEMENT WOULD CAUSE OR ADD TO THE 

HARM.

II.

N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) authorizes the Division to petition for termination 

of parental rights in the "best interests of the child," if it can show the following:

(1) The child's safety, health or development has been 

or will continue to be endangered by the parental 

relationship; 

(2) The parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the 

harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to 

provide a safe and stable home for the child and the 

delay of permanent placement will add to the harm. 

Such harm may include evidence that separating the 

child from his resource family parents would cause 

serious and enduring emotional or psychological harm 

to the child;

(3) The [D]ivision has made reasonable efforts to 

provide services to help the parent correct the 
18 A-3585-18T4

circumstances which led to the child's placement 

outside the home and the court has considered 

alternatives to termination of parental rights; and 

(4) Termination of parental rights will not do more 

harm than good. 

"Our review of a trial judge's decision to terminate parental rights is 

limited." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007); 

see Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998) ("Because of the family courts' 

special . . . expertise in family matters, appellate courts should accord deference 

to family court factfinding."). "We will not disturb the [judge's] decision to 

terminate parental rights when there is substantial credible evidence in the 

record to support the [judge's] findings." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. 

E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008).

A.

Jim argues that the trial judge erred when he found clear and convincing 

evidence that prong one was satisfied, as there was no substantiation of neglect 

and no evidence of harm to the children, the family lived with the children's 

grandparents a majority of the time, Jim worked twelve-hour days to pay for the 

housing, and both parents complied with court orders to have the children 

immunized and to arrange for the children's dental work. Additionally, Jim 

contends that the judge erred in relying on Dr. Brandwein's testimony that the 
19 A-3585-18T4

parents did not appreciate the importance of dental hygiene because Dr. 

Brandwein is not a dental expert, and he did not formally evaluate Jim. 

Prong one focuses "on the effect of harms arising from the parent-child 

relationship over time on the child's health and development." In re 

Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 348 (1999). The harm "must be one that 

threatens the child's health and will likely have continuing deleterious effects on 

the child." Id. at 352. "Courts need not wait to act until a child is actually 

irreparably impaired by parental inattention or neglect." In re Guardianship of 

DMH, 161 N.J. 365, 383 (1999). The standard is "whether it is reasonably 

foreseeable that the parents can cease to inflict harm upon the children entrusted 

to their care." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.S., 202 N.J. 145, 167 

(2010) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 607

(1986)). 

The record supports the judge's finding that Jim posed a significant threat 

of harm to Cindy and John. Jim repeatedly failed to comply with court orders 

and the Division's recommendations and instead continued to use illicit 

substances and engage in criminal behavior, resulting in his incarceration 

several times. Additionally, he could not maintain stable housing and was

homeless at times. Although Jim points to instances of positive behavior and 
20 A-3585-18T4

relies on a lack of substantiation of neglect, his continued noncompliance with 

orders and recommendations and his failure to provide a safe, stable home for 

Cindy and John demonstrate that it was unlikely he would be able to cease any 

future harm to the children. Additionally, Jim's contention that the judge erred 

in relying on Dr. Brandwein's testimony about the general importance of dental 

hygiene is without merit, as a person need not have specialized knowledge to 

understand the issue generally. See N.J.R.E. 702.2

B.

Jim argues that the trial judge erred when he found clear and convincing 

evidence that prong two was satisfied because he was willing and able to address 

the Division's concerns, as revealed by his attendance at substance abuse 

screenings, evaluations and treatment programs, a bonding evaluation, and 

visitations. Poor attendance with respect to the substance abuse evaluations was 

due to his work schedule. Further, Jim asserts he was able to provide safe 

housing, and he continued working to ensure he was able to pay for housing. 

2

 N.J.R.E. 702 provides, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge 

will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in 

issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, 

or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."
21 A-3585-18T4

Lastly, Jim disputes the credibility of Dr. Brandwein's opinion that the children's 

bond to Jim was insecure, as he claims it was based solely on his incarceration.

Under prong two, the Division must show that the parent is unable or 

unwilling to correct the circumstances that led to the Division's involvement. 

K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 348-49. There must be continued harm to the child, resulting 

from the parent's inability or unwillingness to remove or overcome the harm. 

N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.J.D., 428 N.J. Super. 451, 483 (App. 

Div. 2012). "Parental unfitness may . . . be demonstrated if the parent has failed 

to provide a 'safe and stable home for the child' and a 'delay [of] permanent 

placement' will further harm the child." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 352 (quoting 

N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(2)). "Keeping the child in limbo, hoping for some long 

term unification plan, would be a misapplication of the law." N.J. Div. of Youth 

& Family Servs. v. A.G., 344 N.J. Super. 418, 438 (App. Div. 2001).

The record supports the judge's finding that the children would continue

to suffer harm from a delay in permanent placement. There is substantial 

evidence that Jim repeatedly failed to comply with the Division's 

recommendations regarding his substance abuse problems, and he was 

repeatedly incarcerated, both of which affected his ability to meet the children's 

needs. Moreover, Dr. Brandwein testified that the prognosis for Jim's ability to 
22 A-3585-18T4

acquire the skills necessary to independently care for the children was dismal. 

Any reliance by Dr. Brandwein or the trial judge on Jim's incarceration was not 

error, as judges may properly consider a parent's incarceration in combination 

with other factors, such as parental performance before incarceration, whether a 

need for permanency will be undermined by a continued parent-child 

relationship, and the effect of a continued relationship on the child's 

psychological and emotional well-being. In re Adoption of Children by L.A.S., 

134 N.J. 127, 143-44 (1993).

In addition, we reject Jim's contention that Dr. Brandwein's opinion with 

respect to Jim was unreliable. Although Dr. Brandwein did not complete a 

psychological evaluation of Jim, he reviewed several documents in connection 

with his evaluation of Amy, which provided information about Jim, and he 

observed Jim's behavior during the bonding evaluation. While Dr. Brandwein's 

opinion of Jim was based on less information than his opinion of Amy, he 

explained why he opined that Jim had not overcome the issues that harmed 

Cindy and John and why he would likely be unable to do so in the foreseeable 

future. See Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 54 (2015) ("[N.J.R.E. 703] requires 

that an expert 'give the why and wherefore' that supports the opinion, 'rather than 
23 A-3585-18T4

a mere conclusion.'" (quoting Borough of Saddle River v. 66 E. Allendale, LLC, 

216 N.J. 115, 144 (2013))).

C.

Amy and Jim both argued that the trial judge erred when he found clear 

and convincing evidence that prong three was satisfied. Amy contends that the 

services the Division provided were not reasonable and did not assist in 

reunifying her with Cindy and John. Specifically, she asserts that the Division 

failed to recommend an inpatient Mommy and Me program and domestic 

violence counseling, and it failed to provide sufficient housing assistance, as it

only offered a housing voucher contingent upon Jim attending a substance abuse 

evaluation. Additionally, Amy argues that the Division should have provided 

supervised visitation with the children at a local Division office when she and 

Jim were on the waitlist for therapeutic visitation.

Jim admits that the Division provided certain services and explains that 

he participated and received positive feedback. However, he claims that the 

Division did not provide housing assistance, and he contends that a parent's 

poverty cannot be the sole reason that a child is removed from his or her parents. 

He adds that the Division did not always properly notify him of recommended 

services, and it did not schedule them around his work schedule. 
24 A-3585-18T4

Under prong three, the Division must make reasonable efforts to promote 

family reunification and to provide "assistance to the parent to correct and 

overcome those circumstances that necessitated the placement of the child into 

foster care." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 354. Efforts include, but are not limited to,

(1) consultation and cooperation with the parent in 

developing a plan for appropriate services; 

(2) providing services that have been agreed upon, to 

the family, in order to further the goal of family 

reunification; 

(3) informing the parent at appropriate intervals of the 

child's progress, development and health; and 

(4) facilitating appropriate visitation.

[N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(c).]

The reasonableness of the Division's efforts "must be [determined] on an 

individualized basis," DMH, 161 N.J. at 390, and are not evaluated based on 

their success, id. at 393. 

The record supports the judge's finding that the Division provided 

reasonable services to both parents. Amy and Jim's arguments are without merit. 

The Division scheduled numerous substance abuse evaluations, which led to 

referrals for IOPs. If the programs did not provide transportation, the Division 

arranged for it. The Division also arranged for psychological evaluations, a 
25 A-3585-18T4

bonding evaluation, visitations, and FPS, and it recommended a Mommy and 

Me program for Amy and domestic violence programs for both parents. 

Additionally, throughout the entire case, the Division tried to communicate with 

the parents as often as it could. When Amy and Jim were dissatisfied with their 

programs, the caseworker expressed the importance of continuing the programs. 

She also updated them on the progress of the case and, after the emergency 

removal, also on the children's progress. 

Amy and Jim have not identified any additional services that would have 

impacted their abilities to overcome their substance abuse problems and 

parenting deficiencies. That they were unsuccessful in completing or complying 

with the required programs does not bear upon the reasonableness of the 

Division's efforts. See ibid. The record reveals that the Division provided both 

parents with many opportunities to address the Division's concerns.

D.

Jim argues that the trial judge erred when he found clear and convincing 

evidence that prong four was satisfied because he should not have relied on Dr. 

Brandwein's testimony, as it was not based on a psychological evaluation. The 

bonding evaluation revealing no evidence of Jim hurting the children, and Dr. 

Brandwein admitted that there was a psychological bond between Jim and the 
26 A-3585-18T4

children, unlike their relationship with the resource parents. Further, there was 

no evidence that the current resource parents wished to adopt the children.

Prong four requires the judge to balance the child's relationship with their 

biological and resource parents and then determine whether the children will 

suffer greater harm from the termination of ties with the former than with the 

latter. K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 355. To terminate parental rights, the judge need not 

find "that no harm will befall the child as a result of the severing of biological 

ties." Ibid. Instead, the judge must focus on "the child's age, [his or] her overall 

health and development, and the realistic likelihood that the [biological] parent 

will be capable of caring for the child in the near future." Id. at 357.

"The overriding consideration . . . remains the child's need for permanency 

and stability." L.J.D., 428 N.J. Super. at 491-92. "Ultimately, a child has a right 

to live in a stable, nurturing environment and to have the psychological security 

that his [or her] most deeply formed attachments will not be shattered." N.J. 

Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 453 (2012). "A child 

cannot be held prisoner of the rights of others, even those of his or her parents. 

Children have their own rights, including the right to a permanent, safe and 

stable placement." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. C.S., 367 N.J. Super. 

76, 111 (App. Div. 2004).
27 A-3585-18T4

The record supports the judge's finding that termination of Jim's parental 

rights would not do more harm than good. As we explained under prong two, 

Dr. Brandwein's testimony about the children's insecure attachment to Jim was 

appropriate. In contrast with his opinion of Jim's parenting abilities, Dr. 

Brandwein noted no concerns about the resource parents' abilities to provide a 

safe and stable environment for Cindy and John. The judge relied on Dr. 

Brandwein's opinion that the resource parents "had forged a loving and caring 

relationship with the two children . . . and would be able to provide a safe and 

stable home for . . . them into the future." Both children have a need for 

permanency, and as Dr. Brandwein opined, after years of noncompliance with 

services, there is no evidence to suggest that Jim will be able to maintain sobriety 

long enough to avoid continuing to endanger both children. Allowing another 

family to adopt Cindy and John serves their best interests, as it will give them 

the permanency they need.

III.

Amy contends that the trial judge erred in denying her request for an 

adjournment to retain a private attorney, thereby depriving her of a fair trial. 

We review the denial of an adjournment request to hire a private attorney 

for an abuse of discretion and will reverse only if the denial caused the 
28 A-3585-18T4

requesting party to suffer a "manifest wrong or injury." State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 

522, 537 (2011) (quoting State v. McLaughlin, 310 N.J. Super. 242, 259 (App. 

Div. 1998)). In termination of parental rights cases, parents have a right to be 

represented by an attorney. N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.4(a); N.J. Div. of Youth & 

Family Servs. v. B.R., 192 N.J. 301, 305-06 (2007). In criminal cases, our 

Supreme Court has identified several factors that judges should balance against

the right to an attorney when deciding whether to grant an adjournment to allow 

a party to retain a new attorney:

the length of the requested delay; whether other 

continuances have been requested and granted; the 

balanced convenience or inconvenience to the litigants, 

witnesses, counsel, and the court; whether the requested 

delay is for legitimate reasons, or whether it is dilatory, 

purposeful, or contrived; whether the defendant 

contributed to the circumstance which gives rise to the 

request for a continuance; whether the defendant has 

other competent counsel prepared to try the case, 

including the consideration of whether the other 

counsel was retained as lead or associate counsel; 

whether denying the continuance will result in 

identifiable prejudice to defendant's case, and if so, 

whether this prejudice is of a material or substantial 

nature; the complexity of the case; and other relevant 

factors which may appear in the context of any 

particular case.

[Hayes, 205 N.J. at 538 (quoting State v. Furguson, 198 

N.J. Super. 395, 402 (App Div. 1985)).]
29 A-3585-18T4

We conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Amy's 

request for an adjournment. Amy did not express dissatisfaction with her 

attorney until first day of trial, during Dr. Brandwein's testimony. Further, she 

did not provide the judge with any reason for her dissatisfaction. After Amy left 

the courtroom, her attorney stated that Amy's present dissatisfaction had not 

hampered their ability to communicate previously. The judge provided Amy 

with ample time to hire a private attorney by arranging for Weber to testify the 

following day and leaving the record open for over a month. Alternatively, as 

the judge found, nothing in the record suggests that Amy's attorney's 

performance was deficient and that a different attorney would have 

accomplished a different result.

To the extent we have not addressed any of the parties' remaining 

arguments, we find that they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion 

in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.