### 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.,
M inors.

_________________________ __

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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, 20182 A

- 2409

- 17T4 On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG

- 07

- 0 183

- 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, Dep uty 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 yea rs old respectively at the ti m e 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 bio logical 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 pa rents 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 defendan t 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, o n 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 locate d inside and were brought from there to a hospital to be assessed. The Division later learned that th e 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 fo r 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 removal 2 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 re source home pending further investigation. Defendant was eventually arrested and indicted for having committed the murders of Ann and her boyfriend , as well as an other unrelated, additional killing. After defendant's arrest, i n May 2016, the Division plac ed the children with their maternal grandmother with the court's and defendant's approval. The children have continued to reside with the ir grandmother, who wishes to adopt them. After the children were placed, they underwent psychological evaluations,

en ga g ed in therapy , and rec ei ved 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 re commended 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 wa y. On January 17, 2017, Zack's therapist reported5 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 d efendant be done in a "predictable and well thought out way as to respect how it will a ffect [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 de fendant 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 t herapy 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 receiv ed therapeutic treatment

. Her therapist reported tha t 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 difficulties6 A

- 2409

- 17T4

sleeping at night." The therapist indicated that she had become increasingly verbal and expres sed 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 Z adie 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 chil d[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 fu lfilled 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 be tween d efendant and the children in accordance with the recommendation of the ir therap ist , but the Division provided d efendant with monthly written updates an d recent photos of the children and kept him informed about the identity of his caseworker. Durin g 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. D efendant initially refused services at the jail , but event ually 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 defend ant in discussion s concerning the
children's placement. During the caseworker's visits, d efendant stated that he approved of the children's placement with their grandmother, but wanted to have a connection with them. He of fered 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 d efendant 's parental rights and adoption. In accordance with plan, o n 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, t he 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 defe n d a n t ' 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 child ren '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 STATUTORY9 A

- 2409

- 17T4 REQUIREMENTS OF N.J.S.A. 30:4C

- 15 AND 30:4C

15.1 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 CH ILDREN. 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 RES OLUTION OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGES, AND THE INABILITY OF J.R.H. TO SUBMIT TO A BONDING10 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 H ARM 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 suffici ent 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 ar e 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 Gr imbergen's determinations are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.