RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0543-18T2

NEW JERSEY DIVISION

OF CHILD PROTECTION

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

J.T.B.,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF J.M.R.B.,

a Minor.

___________________________

Submitted June 4, 2019 – Decided June 19, 2019

Before Judges Rothstadt and Natali.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, 

Docket No. FG-08-0032-18.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public Defender, 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0543-18T2

of counsel; Lauren Derasmo, Designated Counsel, on 

the briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; Erica L. Sharp, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy 

Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant J.T.B. (John)1appeals from the Family Part's September 18, 

2018 Judgment of Guardianship terminating his parental rights to J.M.R.B. 

(Jessica), who was eight years old at the time of the guardianship trial. We 

affirm because we find substantial credible evidence in the record to support the 

judge's determination. 

The facts as developed at trial are summarized here. Defendant is the 

biological father of Jessica, who was born in 2012. The Division of Child 

Protection and Permanency (Division) first became involved with Jessica's 

mother, D.M.D. (Denise), in September 2011 when she tested positive for 

 

1

 To protect privacy interests and for ease of reading, we use initials and 

fictitious names for the parents and children. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
3

A-0543-18T2

cocaine at a prenatal visit. Denise tested negative for cocaine at Jessica's birth, 

and in June 2013, custody was returned to Denise and the case was closed. 

The Division again became involved with Denise in October 2015, after 

she had been hospitalized three times in one week and tested positive for various 

drugs. At that point, P.T. (Pamela), Jessica's maternal great-aunt, was granted 

temporary custody of Jessica. On April 22, 2016, Denise passed away, and on 

May 2, 2016, John obtained custody of Jessica. Until then, Jessica had only 

resided with Denise and Pamela. The Division closed its case in June of 2016. 

In July of 2016, the Division received a referral from V.R. (Vivian), John's 

partner, who stated that John and Jessica had moved into her home in May of 

that year. Vivian suspected that John was using cocaine and stated that he had 

committed acts of domestic violence against her and physically abused Jessica. 

John had left Vivian's home with Jessica the night before and the two were 

staying at a motel, which Division workers visited that day to speak to John 

about the allegations in the referral, which John denied. Later that evening, 

caseworkers and police officers returned to the motel and found Jessica asleep 

alone in a third-floor room. John stated that his cousin was in the room caring 

for Jessica, but officers did not see anyone else in the room and when asked, 

Jessica said that only John had been watching her that day.
4

A-0543-18T2

As a result of this incident, the Division implemented a safety protection 

plan (SPP). John identified his aunt and uncle, who agreed to act as supervisors. 

The caseworker explained that John needed to be "supervised within sight and 

sound at all times with [Jessica]" and that "at no time should [John] leave the 

home alone with [Jessica] or be alone with [Jessica]." Five days later, the 

Division learned that John and Jessica left the aunt and uncle's home. John's 

aunt suspected that they returned to Vivian's home. Intake workers arrived at 

Vivian's home later that evening and found John and Jessica there. John stated 

that he was not aware that he had to remain at his aunt and uncle's home until 

further notice from the Division. Due to the violation of the SPP, the Division 

conducted a Dodd removal of Jessica on July 20, 2016.2 The court upheld the 

emergency removal and placed Jessica in Vivian's care and granted John 

supervised visitation. The court ordered John to obtain stable housing, complete 

substance abuse and parental capacity evaluations, and submit to random drug 

screens. 

In the months that followed, John tested positive on numerous occasions 

for cocaine and alcohol and was never able to demonstrate a sustained period of 

 

2

 A Dodd removal is an emergent removal of a minor without a court order 

pursuant to the Dodd Act, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.82. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. 

& Permanency v. T.U.B., 450 N.J. Super. 210, 215 n.2 (App. Div. 2017).
5

A-0543-18T2

sobriety. John was also largely noncompliant with services that the Division 

offered. He missed several visitation dates with Jessica. His parental capacity 

evaluation was rescheduled six times due to his failure to appear for 

appointments, he failed to appear for ten substance abuse evaluations, and he 

never attended substance abuse treatment as ordered. 

In January 2017, Jessica was removed from Vivian's care and ultimately 

placed with Pamela, based on John's request. In May 2017, John was warned 

that noncompliance with services would result in the Division's permanency 

plan recommendation to the court to change from reunification to adoption. The 

caseworker reminded John that Jessica had been in placement since July of 2016, 

there was only one month before the court hearing for permanency, and several 

services had still not been completed. 

On July 31, 2017, John attended a parenting capacity evaluation 

performed by Dr. Meryl Udell. The doctor recommended parenting classes and 

substance abuse treatment for John, and that reunification not be considered 

until John demonstrated nine to twelve months of recovery. 

On September 27, 2017, the court approved the Division's plan to 

terminate John's parental rights followed by kinship legal guardianship (KLG) 

or adoption. Although John completed the parental capacity evaluation, he 
6

A-0543-18T2

"continue[d] to test positive for cocaine and alcohol and has failed to complete 

court-ordered substance abuse re-evaluation/treatment and parenting 

education." He also lacked stable housing. On November 6, 2017, the Division 

filed its Complaint for Guardianship. 

In June 2018, Dr. James Loving performed a psychological evaluation of 

John where John "flatly denied the allegations that ha[d] been made against him" 

and "disputed every one of the incriminating details that [Dr. Loving] ha[d] 

summarized from the records," including living apart from Jessica for long 

periods of time, Vivian's allegations that resulted in the SPP, and failing to visit 

with Jessica. John denied noncompliance with the Division's services except 

because of practical reasons, such as his work schedule and a recent car 

accident.3 Dr. Loving found that John gave the Division "no choice but to err in 

the direction of safety" because he posed risks as a parent and after a year of the 

Division's involvement, he was "essentially at 'square one' in terms of embarking 

on services that could help him assess his problem areas and then address them." 

Dr. Loving concluded that John had a "dismal prognosis" for complying with 

 

3

 Notably, John never substantiated his excuses with any documents such as 

police reports about the accident or medical reports about his injuries or 

treatment that prevented him from complying with services and visitation. 
7

A-0543-18T2

services in the future and was "not likely to provide a safe, stable home for 

[Jessica] in the foreseeable future." 

Dr. Loving also performed bonding evaluations between Jessica and both 

John and Pamela. In his findings, he noted that Jessica had only lived under 

John's primary care for three months, while she had spent several lengthy 

periods with Pamela, who "has arguably been the most constant and recurring 

parent figure [Jessica] has known." Although Dr. Loving observed that Jessica

had a strong attachment to both John and Pamela, he opined that if John's 

parental rights were terminated, it would "place [Jessica] at only mild or low 

risk for long-term emotional harm," as she "has spent the majority of her young 

lifetime outside the primary care of her father, so this outcome would not 

represent a significant or meaningful change to her." According to Dr. Loving, 

Pamela would be able to mitigate this low risk of emotional harm. However, if 

Jessica were removed from Pamela's care, the "move and associated loss and 

disruption would place her at a rather high risk for long-term emotional harm," 

especially considering the early loss of her mother. Dr. Loving's opinion was 

that John would not be able to mitigate this risk of harm.

At the 2018 guardianship trial, Diana Blocker, the assigned caseworker, 

and Dr. Loving testified for the Division. Blocker stated that John completed a 
8

A-0543-18T2

substance abuse evaluation in August 2016, after several referrals and 

appointments, and completed two hair follicle tests, both of which were positive 

for cocaine. Blocker testified that John did not complete parenting classes, had 

not been able to demonstrate a sustained period of sobriety, and had 

demonstrated "[m]inimal compliance at best" with urine drug screens. John's 

compliance with Division-supervised visitation was "[s]poradic." As of that 

date, John had not adequately addressed the risk of harm that led to Jessica's 

removal or the Division's concerns regarding substance abuse or parenting. As 

to John's ability to care for Jessica, Blocker stated that

right now, we just have no evidence that anything has 

changed. All the services that we've tried to provide 

have not been completed, so therefore we have no 

baseline to see what progress has been made at this 

point. [John] is inconsistent with his contact with 

J[essica], so we don't even have that to go on. And it's 

just we're not sure if any of the issues that led to her 

removal have been officially remedied at this point.

When asked whether it seemed like any of those issues would be remedied in 

the foreseeable future, Blocker stated that she "ha[d] no indication that they 

would be." Blocker contended that Jessica desired to remain with Pamela and 

feels safe in Pamela's home. Additionally, "as long as they know that [John] is 

sober and he's a safe person, a safe caregiver, [Pamela and her family] would be 

willing to maintain contact even if they adopt[.]" 
9

A-0543-18T2

Dr. Loving reiterated that John maintained custody of Jessica for only 

three months and that she had spent most of her life residing with Pamela. Dr. 

Loving noted John's noncompliance with the services offered to him and 

"intermittent or sporadic" drug use since Jessica's removal. Dr. Loving 

concluded to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty that: (1) John 

exhibits no signs of a major mental health issue, other than substance abuse, and 

has no intellectual limitations that would stand in the way of parenting; (2) John 

poses a risk in terms of substance abuse, specifically as to cocaine; and (3) there 

are other areas of potential risk, including child abuse and domestic violence, 

which "may or may not be barriers to safe reunification" but "the Division has 

not been able to assess fully and rule out because of [John's] non-cooperation 

and his lack of candor over the past two years." Like Blocker, Dr. Loving saw 

John "as being basically at square one . . . in terms of reunification efforts, 

having not completed any services to help ensure that he has addressed whatever 

substance abuse problem he has and . . . to make sure those other areas are not 

barriers to reunification." Defendant did not testify or call any witnesses.

After considering the testimony and documents admitted into evidence, 

the trial court judge entered the guardianship judgment that ordered termination 

of defendant's parental rights. In her oral decision placed on the record on 
10 A-0543-18T2

September 18, 2018 and September 20, 2018, the judge found that the Division 

had proven all four prongs of the best interests of the child test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C15.1(a), and that termination of defendant's parental rights was in Jessica's best 

interests.

The judge found that prong one was satisfied by John leaving Jessica alone 

in the motel room; later violating the SPP, which created a "clear" risk of harm 

to Jessica; the allegations of domestic violence between John and Vivian; and 

John's unabated drug abuse. The judge found that the Division proved prong 

two because John "never took the need for services seriously." He failed to 

complete any assessments or treatments aimed at addressing his substance abuse 

and parenting issues, and frequently missed scheduled visits. 

Regarding prong three, the judge found that "the Division's efforts were 

very reasonable in this matter." The Division "ha[d] a very good initial plan" 

that included multiple referrals for the services John required. In terms of 

exploring other alternatives, the judge stated that Pamela "is somebody [John] 

wanted and requested the Division to look at twice," and that the Division 

considered KLG. 

The judge found the fourth prong to be proven based on Dr. Loving's 

unrefuted conclusion from his bonding evaluations that Jessica would not suffer 
11 A-0543-18T2

more harm than good as a result of termination and that Jessica shared a very 

close, loving bond with Pamela. The judge also noted that Jessica's exhibited 

"resilience is already grounded on what her aunt has done to care for" her, and 

that Pamela supports Jessica visiting with John.

On appeal, defendant argues the following points:

POINT I

THE APPELLATE DIVISION MUST REVERSE 

THE JUDGMENT OF GUARDIANSHIP BECAUSE 

DCPP FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE FATHER'S 

RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CHILD WAS 

HARMFUL NOR THAT TERMINATION OF 

PARENTAL RIGHTS AND ADOPTION BY THE 

MATERNAL GREAT AUNT WOULD SERVE THE 

CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS.

A. J.T.B. HAS NOT HARMED HIS CHILD 

WITHIN THE MEANING OF N.J.S.A. 30:4C15.1(a)(1).

B. THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION 

THAT THE SECOND PRONG OF THE STATUTE 

WAS SATISFIED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY 

SUBSTANTIAL, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

C. THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN 

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A 

FINDING THAT DCPP MET ITS BURDEN OF 

PROOF UNDER THE THIRD PRONG OF THE 

STATUTE.
12 A-0543-18T2

1. DCPP MADE NO EFFORT TO 

OFFER SERVICES IN PENNSYLVANIA WHERE 

J.T.B. RESIDED.

2. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT 

PROPERLY CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO 

TERMINATION OF J.T.B.'S PARENTAL RIGHTS.

D. THE CONCLUSION THAT 

TERMINATION WOULD NOT DO MORE HARM 

THAN GOOD WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE 

EVIDENCE.

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

her expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998), 

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

sufficient credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 

N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (citing In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 

(App. Div. 1993)).

Parents have a constitutionally protected right to the care, custody, and 

control of their children. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982). "The 

rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed 'essential,' 'basic 

civil rights . . . ,' and 'rights far more precious . . . than property rights.'" Stanley 

v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) (alterations in original) (citations omitted). 

"[T]he preservation and strengthening of family life is a matter of public concern 
13 A-0543-18T2

as being in the interests of the general welfare . . . ." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-1(a); see 

also In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347 (1999).

The constitutional right to the parental relationship, however, is not 

absolute. K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 347. At times, a parent's interest must yield to the 

State's obligation to protect children from harm. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family 

Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382, 397 (2009); In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 

1, 10 (1992). To effectuate these concerns, the Legislature codified a test for 

determining whether a parent's rights must be terminated in the child's best 

interests. N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) requires that the Division prove by clear and 

convincing evidence the following four prongs:

(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 

circumstances which led to the child's placement 

outside the home and the court has considered 

alternatives to termination of parental rights; and
14 A-0543-18T2

(4) Termination of parental rights will not do more 

harm than good.

See also N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 604-11 

(1986).

Applying these guiding principles, we conclude from our review of the 

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

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

conclude that defendant's arguments challenging the judge's determinations are 

without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.