RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0498-20

NEW JERSEY DIVISION 

OF CHILD PROTECTION 

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

S.L., 

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

GUARDIANSHIP OF M.L.,

a minor.

_________________________

Submitted on September 13, 2021 – Decided September 20, 2021

Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, 

Docket No. FG-13-0047-20.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Carol A. Weil, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0498-20

Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Amy Melissa Young, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian,

attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy 

Public Defender, of counsel; Samantha Kelly, admitted

pursuant to Rule 1:21-3(b), on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant S.L.

1

is the biological mother of a son born in June 2019. She 

appeals from a September 29, 2020 judgment of guardianship terminating her 

parental rights to her son.2 Defendant contends the New Jersey Division of Child 

Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 

30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence.3 We find no merit to 

defendant's arguments and affirm substantially for the detailed reasons 

1

 Pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d)(12), we refer to defendant by her initials.

2

 Because the child's biological father is unknown, he did not participate at trial 

or on appeal. 

3

 The Legislature enacted P.L. 2021 c. 154, amending laws pertaining to the 

standards for terminating parental rights and the placement of children with

relatives or kinship guardians. In reviewing a petition to terminate parental 

rights, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1, as amended, excludes from consideration the harm 

to a child caused from being removed from resource parents.
3

A-0498-20

expressed by Judge Teresa Ann Kondrup-Coyle in her September 29, 2020 oral 

decision.

We do not recite the entire history of the Division's interactions with 

defendant. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings, credibility 

determinations, and legal conclusions contained in Judge Kondrup-Coyle's 

decision. We summarize the relevant facts adduced during the trial.

In June 2019, the Division removed the child immediately after defendant 

gave birth based on a finding of narcotics in the child's system. After giving 

birth, the hospital diagnosed defendant with post-traumatic stress disorder and 

opiate dependency. The Division filed a complaint seeking custody of the child 

based on defendant's "unaddressed substance abuse and mental health issues" 

and concerns regarding defendant's possible homelessness. 

Initially, the Division placed the child with defendant's brother and sisterin-law. The child was subsequently transferred to a non-family resource home. 

After the trial, the child temporarily returned to the home of defendant's brother 

and sister-in-law. Thereafter, defendant's brother and sister-in-law suggested 

the Division place the child with their close friends. The Division placed the 

child with the recommended family and he awaits adoption by that family.
4

A-0498-20

While pregnant, defendant stockpiled and ingested Adderall. She had 

been prescribed Suboxone based on a history of abusing Percocets. Defendant 

admitted to using drugs, including "bump[s] of speed here and there" during the 

pregnancy. Defendant never sought prenatal care. 

Based on the Division's complaint, on June 20, 2019, the judge granted 

the Division temporary custody of defendant's son. In addition, the judge 

ordered defendant to undergo substance abuse and psychological evaluations 

and a hair follicle test. The judge also allowed defendant supervised visits with 

the child at her brother's home. 

The assigned Division case worker was unable to contact defendant by 

telephone and decided to visit defendant at her home to follow up on the 

scheduling of the evaluations and tests. Defendant refused to allow the case 

worker into the home but agreed to comply with the evaluations and execute 

releases for her medical records. 

The next day, the case worker took defendant for a substance abuse 

evaluation and defendant tested positive for methamphetamines and 

norbuprenorphine. Because defendant failed to follow up with subsequent 

portions of the substance abuse evaluation, the treatment program was unable to 

make any treatment recommendations. Defendant never took the required hair 
5

A-0498-20

follicle test. The Division scheduled several additional substance abuse 

evaluations and appointments. However, defendant never appeared for the 

appointments. 

Similarly, defendant failed to attend the numerous psychological 

examinations scheduled by the Division. She offered excuses for missing each 

scheduled appointment, including lack of transportation. However, when the 

Division offered to provide transportation to the scheduled appointments, 

defendant declined. 

Thereafter, despite repeated efforts to contact defendant and follow up 

with her completion of the court-ordered evaluations, the Division was unable 

to reach defendant. On one occasion, the Division case worker went to 

defendant's home and saw defendant peek through the window of the home but 

refuse to answer the door. 

Initially, defendant visited her son at her brother's home and assisted with 

limited caretaking activities, such as feeding and diaper changing. However, 

defendant's visits were inconsistent, and she would "disappear" for days. 

Defendant never explained why she missed visits with her son. On other 

occasions, defendant would arrive unannounced to visit the child well after his 

bedtime. Because defendant's brother and his wife had three other children and 
6

A-0498-20

defendant's involvement in the child's life was sporadic, they decided it was best 

for the child to be removed so another family could adopt him. Defendant's 

brother told the Division there were no other family members available to care 

for the child. 

In August 2019, the child was placed in a non-family home. Defendant 

went to say good-bye to her son prior to removal from her brother's home but 

refused to speak with the case worker about the child's transfer to another home. 

Between August and December 2019, the Division attempted multiple times to 

contact defendant. Defendant would occasionally send text messages to the 

Division but did not respond to the Division's reply text messages. During this 

time, the child adapted to life with his new resource family. The Division case 

workers noted the child was happy and cheerful each time they visited. 

In December 2019, defendant attended the permanency hearing. Because 

defendant failed to comply with the court-ordered evaluations and services to 

address her substance abuse and mental health issues, the court accepted the 

Division's plan to terminate defendant's parental right followed by adoption. 

Another Division worker was assigned after the court approved the adoption 

plan. The Division's adoption worker made numerous attempts to contact 

defendant, but those efforts were unsuccessful. 
7

A-0498-20

The Division's adoption worker finally met defendant at a court hearing 

in February 2020. When the adoption worker attempted to discuss the child's 

status, defendant focused the discussion on her neighbor who defendant claimed 

sabotaged efforts to improve her life and relationship with her son. 

A different Division adoption worker was assigned in June 2020. Through 

video chats, the new adoption worker confirmed the child was happy and wellcared for by his resource parents. The resource parents remained committed to 

adopting the child. 

The newly assigned adoption worker had the same difficulty 

communicating with defendant. She met defendant on September 16, 2020, just 

before the trial. Defendant insisted on meeting the adoption worker in a location 

other than her home because defendant said her neighbor "hacked into [her 

telephone]" and watched her every move. When the adoption worker suggested 

defendant move to another location to get away from the neighbor, defendant 

insisted she needed to "catch" the neighbor otherwise he would follow her and 

continue to sabotage her life. 

Dr. David Brandwein, the Division's psychology expert, testified at trial. 

Because defendant missed each of the scheduled psychological evaluations, the 

doctor relied on records provided by the Division and his bonding evaluation 
8

A-0498-20

between the child and the resource parents. Dr. Brandwein observed a secure 

relationship between the child and the resource parents. He also noted defendant 

never visited after the child's placement in the resource home despite the 

resource parents' desire to maintain open communications, including in-person 

visits. Because defendant missed her evaluations and declined the various 

services offered by the Division to address her substance abuse and mental 

health issues, the doctor opined the resource parents provided more permanency 

and stability for the child and offered him a safer physical and psychological 

home. Defendant presented no competent expert testimony.

The Division's case worker and adoption worker testified at trial. Both 

described numerous efforts to contact defendant and provide the necessary 

services to be reunified with the child. The Division workers described 

defendant as unusually fixated on her neighbor and her belief the neighbor was 

sabotaging efforts to care for her son. 

After consulting with her attorney, defendant elected to testify at trial. 

Rather than testifying how she planned to care for her son and address his needs, 

defendant described her neighbor's efforts to thwart plans for her son. Defendant 

explained she missed visits with her son because she feared the neighbor would 
9

A-0498-20

find her son and cause him harm. However, defendant proffered no evidence,

other than her own testimony, to substantiate claims against the neighbor. 

After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, Judge KondrupCoyle found the Division met its burden and proved all four prongs of N.J.S.A. 

30:4C-15.1 by clear and convincing evidence. The judge gave significant 

weight to the testimony of Dr. Brandwein and the Division's workers. The judge 

found the testimony of the Division's witnesses supported by the documentary 

evidence. 

Under the first prong, the judge noted drugs were found in the child's 

system at birth. Defendant failed to get prenatal care which would have 

informed defendant using drugs while pregnant could adversely impact the 

unborn child. Various appointments to address substance abuse and mental 

health issues were offered to defendant but she declined to follow through. The 

failure to address her issues rendered defendant incapable of caring for her child. 

Based on these behaviors, the judge determined defendant posed a risk of harm 

to her son's safety, health, and development. 

Under the second prong, the judge explained defendant elected to remain 

in her home to "catch" her neighbor in the act of sabotage rather than engage in 

the services offered by the Division to enable reunification. The judge 
10 A-0498-20

concluded defendant's obsession with the neighbor caused harm to the child. In 

addition, the judge found defendant stepped out of the child's life for lengthy 

periods of time, endangering the child's health and welfare. 

Under the third prong, Judge Kondrup-Coyle concluded defendant refused 

to participate in the services offered by the Division. In fact, defendant 

deliberately avoided the Division's efforts to contact her. Absent participation 

in the offered services, defendant was unable to demonstrate an ability to 

provide a safe and secure relationship with her child. 

Also under the third prong, the judge concluded the Division made every 

effort to locate a family member to care for defendant's son. Defendant's brother 

and sister-in-law were unable to care for the child long term due, in part, to 

defendant's interfering with raising the child and participating sporadically in 

caring for the child. Based on the testimony, there were no other family 

members available to care for the child. 

Under the fourth prong, while Dr. Brandwein was unable to evaluate 

defendant's relationship with the child, he explained the child developed a safe 

and secure relationship with the resource parents. Based on defendant's 

behaviors, including numerous missed visits with the child over the course of 

many months and refusal to participate in offered services, the judge surmised 
11 A-0498-20

defendant lacked the necessary parent-child relationship. She concluded "there 

is no reason to even think that there is a relationship between [defendant and the 

child]." The judge held termination of defendant's parental rights would 

promote the child's need for permanency and stability and, therefore, would not 

cause more harm than good. 

Judge Kondrup-Coyle considered the testimony and documentary 

evidence in concluding the Division proved all four prongs of the best interests 

test by clear and convincing evidence under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). Based on 

substantial and credible evidence adduced during the trial, she determined

termination of defendant's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The 

judge explained defendant's inconsistent contact with the child, failure to 

assume a parental role, and refusal to complete court-ordered services supported 

the Division's satisfaction of all four prongs of the best interests test. 

On appeal, defendant contends the Division failed to satisfy its burden 

under all four prongs of the statute and, therefore, the judge erred in terminating 

her parental rights.4 We disagree.

4

 While this appeal was pending, in January 2021, the child was placed with 

friends of defendant's brother and sister-in-law where he awaits adoption by that

family. Due to the child's very young age, Dr. Brandwein based his opinions 

regarding termination of defendant's parental rights on the child's need for 
12 A-0498-20

Defendant did not offer any evidence other than her own self-serving 

testimony that reunification with her son was in the child's best interests. Judge 

Kondrup-Coyle's detailed findings and credibility determinations are entitled to 

deference because they are based on substantial credible evidence stemming 

from the judge's ability to see and hear the witnesses. N.J. Div. of Youth & 

Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014); Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 

412-13 (1998). 

Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied that 

the evidence supports the judge's decision to terminate defendant's parental 

rights. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons expressed by Judge KondrupCoyle. 

Judge Kondrup-Coyle found the Division met its burden of proving harm 

to the child's health, safety, and development. The judge also concluded the 

Division proved defendant failed to take steps to cease harming the child based 

on her refusal to participate in services designed to address her substance abuse 

and mental health issues. Judge Kondrup-Coyle determined the Division made 

reasonable efforts to provide services to facilitate reunification but that 

permanency and stability essential to his development and defendant's inability 

to provide the requisite permanency and stability.
13 A-0498-20

defendant's own actions and preoccupation with her neighbor rendered those 

efforts unsuccessful. After evaluating the unrebutted expert testimony, the 

judge soundly concluded the harm inherent in severing the parental relationship 

between the child and defendant was outweighed by the benefit of the child 

being adopted by parents who would provide a safe and nurturing environment. 

Applying the legal principles governing our review of a decision to 

terminate parental rights, we conclude Judge Kondrup-Coyle's factual findings 

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

conclusions are unassailable.

 Affirmed.