RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2409-17T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION

OF CHILD PROTECTION

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

A.V.J., 

Defendant,

and

J.R.H.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF 

Z.J.H. and Z.A.J., 

Minors.

___________________________

Submitted December 4, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Yannotti and Rothstadt.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 18, 2018
2

A-2409-17T4

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket 

No. FG-07-0183-17.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Richard Sparaco, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Francesca E. Cheli, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minors (Nancy P. Fratz, Assistant Deputy 

Public Defender, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant J.R.H. appeals from the Family Part's January 11, 2018 order 

terminating his parental rights to Z.J.H. (Zack) and Z.A.J. (Zadie),

1 who were 

six and two years old respectively at the time of the guardianship trial. We 

affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Nora J. Grimbergen in her

written decision issued with the order.

The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's opinion. A summary will 

suffice here. Defendant is the biological father of Zack, born in August 2011, 

and Zadie, born in October 2014. On January 12, 2016, the children's late 

 

1

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

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

A-2409-17T4

mother, A.V.J. (Ann), obtained a restraining order against defendant that granted 

the parents joint legal custody of the children, with Ann having primary 

residential custody. The order granted defendant parenting time and ordered 

defendant to complete a parenting class.

Defendant made a referral to the Division of Child Protection and 

Permanency (Division) in January 2016 about Ann's exposing the children to a 

risk of harm by not providing adequate supervision. During the investigation of

that referral, on January 30, 2016, the Division was contacted by local police 

after they found Ann and her boyfriend murdered in her apartment. At the time

that police responded to the apartment, Zack and Zadie were located inside and 

were brought from there to a hospital to be assessed. The Division later learned 

that the children witnessed the murder.

The Division contacted defendant about taking custody of the children. 

Defendant initially stated that he was unavailable because he was caring for his 

cousin, but later met with workers at the hospital. After the county prosecutor 

and local police questioned defendant about the murders, on January 31, 2016, 

the Division initiated a Dodd removal2 of the children and placed them in a non-

 

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).
4

A-2409-17T4

relative resource home pending further investigation. Defendant was eventually 

arrested and indicted for having committed the murders of Ann and her

boyfriend, as well as another unrelated, additional killing.

After defendant's arrest, in May 2016, the Division placed the children 

with their maternal grandmother with the court's and defendant's approval. The 

children have continued to reside with their grandmother, who wishes to adopt 

them.

After the children were placed, they underwent psychological evaluations,

engaged in therapy, and received various services through the Division. During 

a February 23, 2016 psychosocial evaluation, Zack expressed that he feared 

defendant. He was diagnosed as having post-traumatic stress disorder, and it 

was recommended that he receive trauma-informed individual therapy to help 

process the violent death of his mother and her boyfriend.

By September 2016, Zack's teachers reported that his behavior and 

demeanor were improving and he was becoming more comfortable at school. 

They recommended that he not be removed from his current environment. His 

therapist reported that Zack attended twenty individual sessions, had developed 

a rapport with his therapist, and was learning to express his feelings, such as 

fear and anger, in a safe way. On January 17, 2017, Zack's therapist reported 
5

A-2409-17T4

that Zack had "recreated scenes where people are being physically hurt, 

controlled and made to feel fearful. He has also recreated scenes where a woman 

who he calls mom is shot by a man who he identifies as his father, and then his 

father goes to jail." The therapist noted that Zack had begun to gain a sense of 

stability and safety and recommended that any visits with defendant be done in 

a "predictable and well thought out way as to respect how it will affect [Zack]'s 

feelings of safety."

Zack underwent a second psychosocial evaluation on April 13, 2017, in 

which he revealed that defendant had "touched his penis with his hand, one time, 

over [Zack]'s clothes, when [Zack] was four." He also stated that defendant 

once pointed a gun at his (Zack's) penis. Zack displayed a great deal of anger 

toward defendant and was experiencing symptoms of anxiety, withdrawal, 

depression, nightmares, and flashbacks. It was recommended that Zack 

participate in individual therapy with a mental health professional with expertise 

in sexual abuse. On June 13, 2017, Zack's counselor provided another update 

and recommended that he continue individual therapy.

Zadie also received therapeutic treatment. Her therapist reported that she 

began treatment due to her refusal to separate from her grandmother at home 

and "her constant need to be held, her increasing nightmares, and difficulties 
6

A-2409-17T4

sleeping at night." The therapist indicated that she had become increasingly 

verbal and expressed anger and aggression when Ann was mentioned. It was 

recommended that Zadie would benefit from continued therapy to help her 

process and manage her feelings.

On September 26, 2017, Dr. Mark Singer, Ed.D conducted a bonding 

evaluation between Zack and Zadie and their grandmother. Along with the input 

of Zack's therapist, Singer concluded that the children's grandmother was 

functioning as their psychological parent. Singer opined that "the significance 

of this relationship in terms of providing the child[ren] with a sense of security 

and stability cannot be over-stated." Significantly, Singer concluded that due to 

exposure to trauma, the children had "a heightened need [for stability] and this 

need is being fulfilled by their grandmother."

According to the doctor, if the children were separated from their 

grandmother, they would be subjected to "significant and enduring harm as the 

data does not suggest that there is any other consistent, healthy parental figure 

to mitigate such harm. This harm would be magnified by the previous trauma 

exposure, including the loss of their mother, relationship with their father, as 

well as exposure to violence." The doctor did not perform a bonding evaluation

between defendant and the children. 
7

A-2409-17T4

In the meantime, while the children were in their grandmother's care and 

undergoing treatment, the Division provided services to defendant while he was 

incarcerated awaiting trial. A Division caseworker visited with him bimonthly. 

The Division did not facilitate visitation between defendant and the children in 

accordance with the recommendation of their therapist, but the Division 

provided defendant with monthly written updates and recent photos of the 

children and kept him informed about the identity of his caseworker. During 

one visit, defendant offered the caseworker photos and a card to give to the 

children; however, the children's therapist decided that it would be best for the 

children to not receive the items. Defendant initially refused services at the jail,

but eventually agreed to attend parenting classes in August 2017 and was placed 

on a waiting list. He ultimately never attended. Defendant also refused to 

participate in a psychological evaluation arranged by the Division, citing his 

pending criminal charges.

The Division also engaged defendant in discussions concerning the 

children's placement. During the caseworker's visits, defendant stated that he 

approved of the children's placement with their grandmother, but wanted to have 

a connection with them. He offered his aunt, mother, and uncle as potential 

placements for the children, each of whom the Division ruled out.
8

A-2409-17T4

The court entered a permanency order on January 27, 2017. The order 

approved the Division's plan for the children for termination of defendant's 

parental rights and adoption. In accordance with plan, on March 7, 2017, the 

Division filed a complaint seeking guardianship of the children.

Judge Grimbergen presided over the guardianship trial on November 29, 

2017 and December 21, 2017. During the trial, the Division called its 

caseworker and Singer as witnesses. Defendant called the Director of Social 

Services for the jail, who testified that the facility would have provided 

parenting related services to defendant if he had requested them.

After considering the testimony and documents admitted into evidence, 

on January 11, 2018, Judge Grimbergen entered the guardianship judgment that 

ordered termination of defendant's parental rights. In her comprehensive 

twenty-six page written decision, the judge found that the Division had proven 

all four prongs of the best interests of the child test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and 

that termination of defendant's parental rights was in the children's best interests. 

On appeal, defendant argues the following points.

POINT I

THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO 

PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING 

EVIDENCE THAT THE STATUTORY 
9

A-2409-17T4

REQUIREMENTS OF N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15 AND 30:4C15.1 WERE MET.

A. RELYING UPON SPECULATION 

AND CONJECTURE THAT J.R.H. WAS 

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOTHER'S 

DEATH, THE LOWER COURT ERRED 

IN FINDING THAT THE CHILDREN'S 

SAFETY, HEALTH OR DEVELOPMENT 

[H]AS BEEN OR WOULD CONTINUE 

TO BE ENDANGERED BY THE 

PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP UNDER 

THE FIRST PRONG.

B. THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT 

EVIDENCE UNDER THE SECOND 

PRONG TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL 

COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE 

DIVISION HAD PROVEN BY CLEAR 

AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT 

THE DELAY OF PERMANENT 

PLACEMENT WILL ADD TO ANY 

POTENTIAL HARM TO THE 

CHILDREN.

C. DUE TO THE DIVISION'S 

FAILURE TO WAIT UNTIL 

RESOLUTION OF THE CRIMINAL 

CHARGES, THE DIVISION FAILED TO 

PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING 

EVIDENCE THAT IT OFFERED 

REASONABLE SERVICES TO J.R.H.

D. DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE 

DIVISION TO WAIT UNTIL 

RESOLUTION OF THE CRIMINAL 

CHARGES, AND THE INABILITY OF 

J.R.H. TO SUBMIT TO A BONDING 
10 A-2409-17T4

EVALUATION, THERE WAS 

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE UNDER 

THE FOURTH PRONG TO PROVE BY 

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE 

THAT TERMINATION OF J.R.H.'S 

PARENTAL RIGHTS WILL NOT DO 

MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

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)). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial judge's 

factual findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, her 

legal conclusions are unassailable. We affirm substantially for the reasons 

stated by Judge Grimbergen in her thorough decision. 

We conclude that defendant's arguments challenging Judge Grimbergen's 

determinations are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

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

Affirmed.