### 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 R othstadt and Mitterhoff. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket No. FG

- 15

- 00 48

- 18.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court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

- 3.2 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 A vis 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; T odd S. Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM In these consolidated appeals, A.H. (Amy) 1 and 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 Protec tion and Permanency (the Division) guardianship over both children. On appeal, Jim argues that the D ivision 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 p art 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 dissatisf action 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 pre gnant 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

a greed to attend a substance abuse program, other than a Mommy and Me4 A

- 3585

- 18T4

program. Soon after, the Division dropped the SPP and arranged for Amy's mother and sist er 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 p ositive 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 at tend 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 a t Oc ean Mental Health (OMH) an d obtained a5 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 i nformation 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 regar ding 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
abou t the stability of the home. The Division offered to pay for a security6 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 se curity 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 the7 A

- 3585

- 18T4

S PP, 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 out

of

- home plac ement by enhancing family fun ctioning and problem solving." While Amy and Jim showed some improvement in parenting and household management skills, their cooperation fluctuated, and thei r compliance was minimal. Additionally, they initially refused to se nd 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 order ed 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 substanc e use and parenting capacity." She "failed to understand the impact of missed medical and other appointments on her children's physical health a nd developmental progression." Dr. Brandw ein diagnosed Amy with unspecified opioid

- related disorder, unspecified8 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 substanc e abuse evaluations and test positive for a mphetamines 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

r eport 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 conduc t an emergency removal of the children . Thereafter, the Division was granted custody o f the children, and it placed them in a non

relative resource home. Cindy and John were enrolled in daycare and scheduled for medical and dental examinations and neurodevelopmental evaluations , which revealed that Cindy had v ision and hearing problems, an d John had hearing, dental, and speech problems. Appropriate treatment s 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 counsel ing 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 counseli ng 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
sl ot 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 childr en if they made an eff ort to comply with the recommended programs. Amy agreed, and she and Jim submitted to drug screenings. Amy tested positive for cocaine and buprenorphine, and J im for THC and buprenorphine.10 A

- 3585

- 18T4

Thereafter, the Division informed the pare nts 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 fo r 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 D aytop New Jersey but she her attendance

was sporadic, and sh e was ultimately discharged w ith 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 s evere opioid use disorder, sever e 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 "tha t there has been no substantive change in [Amy's] psychological functioning and parenting capacity relative to the11 A

- 3585

- 18T4

previous examination, and . . . [Amy is not] currently [able] to provide independent care to her chil dren." Because of her limited c omplianc e 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 reu nification . . . with [Amy]." On July 20, 2018, Dr. Brandwein conducted a bonding evaluation of the family. For thirty minutes, he observed Amy and Jim toget her with both children , noting that the children were happy to see their parents and ref erred 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 at tachment 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 o n his observations , he opi ned "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 emotional12 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
pe rmanency " to allow their birth parents to do something they seem poorly motivated to achieve; that is, sobriety, stability, and the development of a lifestyle conduciv e to raising minor children." In September 2018, Cindy and John were moved to a new re source 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 o f trial, neither Amy13 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 h is 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 re cent 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 opinion s would not change because the real concern s were about Amy's and
J im'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 repre sent 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 half

hour. 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. Therea fter, Amy left the courthouse. The judge denied her attorney's request for an adjournment, as there was no prior indication that Amy was dis satisfied14 A

- 3585

- 18T4

with her attorney; however, he did request that one of the caseworkers return the following day to a llow Amy time to hire a new attorney if she wished.
The trial continued , and the judge heard testimony from Williams and Weber, t he Division cas eworkers

. 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 t estify. O n March 6, 2019, the judge issued an order requiring the Division to notify A my 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 J ustice 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 testifi ed 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 inca rcerated. 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 t h at " the children were in signi ficant 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." T hey also failed to meet the children's medical needs and cou ld not provide stable housing. Under prong
two , the judge found that " the children will suffer further delay if permanen t placement is not resolved," given the parents' demonstrated lack of interest, their inability to address their s ubstance abuse problems, their f ailure to meet the children's medical needs, and their repeated incarceration

. He also relied on Dr. Brandwein's opinion that th e prognosis for either parent becoming able to independently care for their children was dismal. Under prong three , the judge found that the Divis ion provided reasonable services , kept both parent s updated throughout the case , explored ki nship legal guard ianship, 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 fo r . . . 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 gu ardianship over both
children

. This appeal ensued. On appeal, A my 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 I NSUFFICIENT 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 UNABLE17 A

- 3585

- 18T4 OR UNWILLING TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND STABLE HOM E 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 FIND ING 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 pare ntal rights in th e "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 en during emotional or psychological harm to the child; (3) The [D]ivision has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the18 A

- 3585

- 18T4 circumstances which led to the child's placement outside the home and the court has considered alternati ves 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 termina te 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 o f the family courts' special . . . expertise in family matters, appellate courts should accord deferen ce to family court factfinding." ). " We will not disturb t he [ judge's ] decision to
t erminate parental rights when there is substantial credible evidence in the record t o 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 substantiat ion 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 ho using, 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 the19 A

- 3585

- 18T4

parents did not appreciate th e 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 de leterious 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
D MH , 161 N.J. 365, 383 (1999)

. The standard is "whether it is reasonably foreseeable that the parents can cease to infl ict 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 p osed a signi ficant 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 in carceration

sever al times . Additionally, he could not maintain stable housing and was
homeless at times. Although Jim points to instances of positive behavior and20 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 pr ong two was satisfied because he was willing and able to address the Division's c oncerns, as revealed by his attendance at substance abuse screenings, evaluations and treatment programs , a bonding evaluation , and visitations

. P oor attendan ce with respect to the substance abuse evaluations was due to his work schedule. Further, Jim asserts he w as 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 understan d 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 for m of an opinion or otherwise."21 A

- 3585

- 18T4

Lastly, Jim disputes the credibility of Dr. Bran dwein'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 har m. 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' wi ll 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 tha t the children would continue to suffer harm from a delay in permanent placement. There is substantial evidence that J im repeatedly failed to comply with the Division's

recommen dations 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 to22 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 cont inued 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 unre liable . 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 woul d likely be unable to do so in the foreseeable future. S ee Townsend v. Pierre , 221 N.J. 36, 5 4 (2015) ("[N.J.R.E. 703] requires that an expert 'give the why and wherefore' that supports the opinion, ' r ather than23 A

- 3585

- 18T4

a mere conclusion.'" (quoting Bo rough of Saddle River v. 66 E. Allendale, LLC , 216 N.J. 115, 144 (20 13))).
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 Cin dy and John. Specifically, she asserts that the Division failed to recommend an i npatient Mommy and Me program and domestic violence counseling, and it failed to provide sufficient housing assistance, as it only offered a housi ng 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 wai tlist 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 b e the sole reason that a child is rem oved from his or her parents. He adds that the Division did not always properly notify him of recommended services , and it did no t schedule them around his work schedule.24 A

- 3585

- 18T4

Under prong three, the Division must make rea sonable 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. E fforts include , but are not lim ited 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 [determi ned] 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

reason abl e services to both parents. Amy and Ji m'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 , a25 A

- 3585

- 18T4

bonding eval uation , visitations , and FPS , an d it recommended a Mommy and Me program for Amy and domestic viole nce 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 th eir programs, the caseworker expressed the importance of continuing the progra ms. 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 service s that would have impacted their abilities to overcome their substance abuse problems and parenting deficiencies. That they were unsuccessful i n completing or complying with the required programs does not bear upon the reasonableness of the Division's eff

orts. 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 co nvincing evidence that prong four was satisfied because he should not have relied on Dr. Brandwein's testimony , as it was not base d on a psychological evaluation. The bonding evaluation revealing no evidence of Jim hurting the children, and Dr. Brandwein admitted that there was a psychol ogical bond between Jim and the26 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 rel ationship with their b iological 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 t he severing of biological ties. " I bid. Instead, the judge must f ocus on "the child's age, [his or] her overall health and development, and the realis tic likelihood that the [biological ] parent will be capable of caring fo r 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 wou ld 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 parent ing 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 relatio nship with the two children . . . and would be able to provide a safe and stable home fo r . . . them into the future." Both children have a need for permanency, and as Dr. Brandwein opined, after years of noncom pliance 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 interest s , 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 the28 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 case s, 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 , o ur Supreme Court has identified several factors that judges should bala nce 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 t he 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 continu ance; 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 d efendant'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 t he 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 ha d not hampered their ability to communicate previously

. T he 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
t he judge found, nothing in the record suggest s that Amy's attorney 's performance was defici ent 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.