RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2020-17T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD 

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

M.S., JR., 

Defendant-Appellant,

and

K.M. and M.J.,

Defendants.

———————————————————

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP 

OF S.L.M. and A.M.S., Minors.

———————————————————

Submitted September 20, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Vernoia. 

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Mercer County,

Docket No. FG-11-0051-17. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 3, 2018
2

A-2020-17T3

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Steven E. Miklosey, Designated Counsel, on 

the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney 

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

General, on the brief). 

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,

attorney for minor A.M.S. (Danielle Ruiz, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant M.S., Jr. (Martin),

1

appeals from a December 18, 2017 Family 

Part Judgment of Guardianship terminating his parental rights to his daughter 

A.M.S. (Alice), who was born in 2013. We are convinced the court correctly 

determined the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency proved 

by clear and convincing evidence that termination of defendant's parental rights 

was in the child's best interests, and affirm.

Martin and K.M. (Kathy) are Alice's biological parents. Kathy is also the 

biological mother of S.L.M. (Stacey), who was born in December 2012. Stacey's 

biological father, M.J., is not a party to this appeal. 

 

1

 We employ initials and pseudonyms for the parties and children for clarity and 

to protect the children's privacy. 
3

A-2020-17T3

In July 2014, the Division received a referral that Martin and Kathy 

abused or neglected Alice and Stacey. On September 18, 2014, the Family Part 

granted the Division care and supervision of the children. Two months later,

the Division conducted an emergency removal of the children from Martin and 

Kathy's care, and the court granted the Division custody of the children. In May 

2015, the Family Part entered an order finding Martin abused or neglected the 

children under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c) based on his stipulation that he placed the 

children at a substantial risk of harm by having an unremediated substance abuse 

problem during the time he cared for them. 

In June 2017, the Division filed a guardianship complaint seeking the 

termination of Kathy's parental rights to Alice and Stacey and Martin's parental 

rights to Alice.2 Three months later, the court accepted Kathy's identified 

surrender of her parental rights to her aunt, T.B. (Aunt Tara), with whom the 

children have resided since February 2015. The court entered a September 27,

2017 order terminating Kathy's parental rights, continuing the children in the 

care, custody and supervision of the Division, and directing that Martin attend 

 

2

 The complaint also sought the termination of M.J.'s parental rights to Stacey 

and alleged M.J. was the "presumed father" of Stacey. The disposition of the 

guardianship complaint as to M.J. is not at issue on appeal.
4

A-2020-17T3

"inpatient/outpatient substance abuse treatment and comply with all 

recommendations of the program." 

The trial on the Division's guardianship complaint against Martin was 

conducted over the course of two days before Judge Audrey P. Blackburn. The 

Division presented the testimony of caseworker Christine Idland and Dr. 

Jonathan Mack, who was qualified as an expert witness in the fields of forensic 

psychology and neuropsychology. Martin did not present any witnesses. 

Judge Blackburn subsequently issued an oral opinion summarizing the 

testimony of Ms. Idland and Dr. Mack, and finding both witnesses credible. The 

judge also made detailed factual findings as to each of the required elements of 

the best-interests-of-the-child standard set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), and 

concluded the Division sustained its burden of proving by clear and convincing 

evidence it was in Alice's best interests to terminate Martin's parental rights. 

Judge Blackburn entered a December 18, 2017 Judgment of Guardianship 

terminating Martin's parental rights to Alice. This appeal followed. 

Martin presents the following arguments for our consideration:

POINT I

The Trial Court Erred in Finding that the Division 

Made Reasonable Efforts to Provide Services to Help 
5

A-2020-17T3

[defendant] Correct the Circumstances Which Led to 

[A.M.S.'s] Removal from His Care and Custody.

POINT II

The Trial Court Erred in Finding that the Division 

Demonstrated that Termination of [defendant's] 

Parental Rights Will Not Do More Harm Than Good.

Our review of a trial court order terminating parental rights is limited. 

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

Family Part's decision to terminate parental rights will not be disturbed when 

there is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the court's 

findings." N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. K.T.D., 439 N.J. Super. 

363, 368 (App. Div. 2015) (citing N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M.,

211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012)). "We accord deference to factfindings of the family 

court because it has the superior ability to gauge the credibility of the witnesses 

who testify before it and because it possesses special expertise in matters related 

to the family." F.M., 211 N.J. at 448 (citing Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 

(1998)). This enhanced deference is particularly appropriate where the court's 

findings are founded upon the credibility of the witnesses' testimony. N.J. Div. 

of Youth & Family Servs. v. H.B., 375 N.J. Super. 148, 172 (App. Div. 2005) 

(citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 

(1974)).
6

A-2020-17T3

"Only when the trial court's conclusions are so 'clearly mistaken' or 'wide 

of the mark' should an appellate court intervene and make its own findings to 

ensure that there is not a denial of justice." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. 

v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008) (quoting G.L., 191 N.J. at 605). No deference 

is given to the trial court's "interpretation of the law," which we review de novo. 

D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232, 245-46 (2012) (citing N.J. Div. of Youth & Family 

Servs. v. I.S., 202 N.J. 145, 183 (2010); Balsamides v. Protameen Chems., 160 

N.J. 352, 372 (1999)).

A parent has a constitutionally protected right "to enjoy a relationship with 

his or her child." In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 346 (1999). That 

right, however, "is not absolute" and is limited "by the State's parens patriae

responsibility to protect children whose vulnerable lives or psychological wellbeing may have been harmed or may be seriously endangered by a neglectful or 

abusive parent." F.M., 211 N.J. at 447 (citing E.P., 196 N.J. at 102). A parent's 

interest must, at times, 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). 

When terminating parental rights, the court must consider the "best 

interests of the child." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 347. The Division's petition to 

terminate parental rights may only be granted if the following four prongs 
7

A-2020-17T3

enumerated in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) are established by clear and convincing 

evidence:

(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 division 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

(4) Termination of parental rights will not do more 

harm than good.

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

"The four criteria enumerated in the best interests standard are not discrete and 

separate; they relate to and overlap with one another to provide a comprehensive 

standard that identifies a child's best interests." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 348. "[T]he 

cornerstone of the inquiry [under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)] is not whether the 

biological parents are fit but whether they can cease causing their child harm." 
8

A-2020-17T3

In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1, 10 (1992) (citing N.J. Div. of Youth & 

Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 607 (1986)). 

Here, Martin argues there is insufficient evidence supporting the court's 

findings on the third and fourth prongs of the best interests standard. We are 

not persuaded. Based on our review of the record, we are convinced Judge 

Blackburn conducted the required fact-sensitive analysis of the statutory factors. 

See K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 348. Her finding the Division provided Martin with 

numerous and ongoing services to ameliorate the mental health, substance abuse 

and domestic violence issues that rendered him unable to safely parent Alice is 

supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. See F.M., 211 N.J. at 

448. Similarly, Judge Blackburn's conclusion that termination of Martin's 

parental rights will not do more harm than good is amply supported by the 

uncontroverted testimony and evidence establishing there is no bond between 

Martin and Alice, there is a strong bond between Alice and her long-time 

caregiver Aunt Tara, Alice will suffer significant harm if she is removed from 

Aunt Tara's care and Alice will not suffer any harm by terminating Martin's 

parental rights. We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in 

Judge Blackburn's well-reasoned oral decision.

Affirmed.