RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3951-16T2

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

D.S.N.L.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

T.T. and H.Y.,

Defendants.

_____________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF H.R.A.L. 

and I.S.L., Minors.

_____________________________

Submitted October 2, 2018 – Decided 

Before Judges Rothstadt, Gilson, and Natali.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 22, 2018
2

A-3951-16T2

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, 

Docket No. FG-07-0101-17.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Ruth A. Harrigan, Designated Counsel, 

of counsel and on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Carlos J. Martinez, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minors (Joseph H. Ruiz, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

D.S.N.L. (Doris)1appeals from a May 3, 2017 judgment terminating her 

parental rights to her son H.R.A.L. (Henry) and daughter I.S.L. (Irene) and 

granting the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) 

guardianship of the children, with the plan that the children be adopted. Doris 

argues that the Division failed to prove the four prongs under the best interests 

of the child test necessary for termination of parental rights. The Division and 

the children's law guardian urge that we affirm the judgment and allow the 

 

1 We use fictitious names and initials for the parties and children to protect 

their privacy and the confidentiality of the record. See R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
3

A-3951-16T2

adoptions to proceed. Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable law, 

we affirm substantially for the reasons explained by Judge James R. Paganelli 

in his comprehensive, thirty-seven-page written opinion issued on May 3, 2017.

The facts and evidence are detailed in Judge Paganelli's opinion, which he 

rendered after a three-day trial. Accordingly, we need only summarize some of 

the relevant facts. Doris is the mother of four children. The two older children 

are not in her custody and are not the subject of this appeal. Henry was born in 

September 2007, and Irene was born in November 2014. The court also 

terminated the parental rights of the fathers of Henry and Irene, but they have 

not appealed.

Doris has a history of substance abuse. The Division has been involved 

with Doris since 2005, when, at the birth of one of her older children, both the 

child and Doris tested positive for opioids and marijuana. Doris also tested 

positive for marijuana use in 2007, when she arrived at the hospital for Henry's 

birth. Despite receiving treatment arranged by the Division, Doris tested 

positive for use of phencyclidine (PCP) and methadone in 2014, when she was 

admitted to a hospital to give birth to Irene.

Irene was diagnosed with prematurity and neonatal abstinence syndrome, 

and suffered from drug withdrawal symptoms, including seizures, tremors, and 
4

A-3951-16T2

respiratory distress. Irene remained in the hospital for six weeks after her birth 

and required medication to treat her symptoms.

Doris also has a history of mental health problems. In 2014, she 

underwent a psychological evaluation. Thereafter, she received various 

treatments. In 2015, Doris underwent a neuropsychological and psychological 

evaluation. The neuropsychological testing revealed impairment of her mental 

faculties and "overall borderline intellectual functioning."

Following the birth of Irene in November 2014, the Division sought and 

was granted custody of Henry and Irene. Both children have remained in foster 

care since their removal in 2014.

The Division provided Doris with numerous services, including substance 

abuse treatment programs, psychological evaluations, parenting classes, and 

various other assistance. Doris, however, failed to successfully complete any of 

the substance abuse treatment programs, and she has repeatedly tested positive 

for alcohol and drug use. After Doris made little progress with services, in July 

2016, the Division filed a complaint for guardianship of Henry and Irene.

The guardianship trial took place in March and April 2017. The Division 

presented testimony from two Division workers and an expert in psychology. 
5

A-3951-16T2

The Division also submitted numerous documents into evidence. Doris elected 

not to testify.

Based on the evidence, Judge Paganelli made detailed findings. He 

credited the testimony of the Division workers and the Division's expert. He 

then made findings concerning Doris' substance abuse, her mental health 

problems, her inability to maintain a stable home, and her failure to comply with 

the various treatments the Division made available to her. Judge Paganelli then 

addressed the four prongs of the best interests of the child test. N.J.S.A. 30:4C15.1(a). Applying his factual findings to the law, Judge Paganelli found that the 

Division had proven each of the four prongs by clear and convincing evidence.

As to prong one, the judge found that Doris had harmed Henry and Irene 

by exposing them to a substantial risk of physical injury by using drugs while 

pregnant with each of the children and exposing Henry to an unsafe 

environment. Addressing prong two, the judge found that Doris was unable or 

unwilling to eliminate the harm facing each of the children. In that regard, Judge 

Paganelli found that Doris had been referred to various programs related both to 

her substance abuse and mental health needs, but she was unable to successfully 

complete any of the programs and she continued to test positive for drug and 

alcohol use.
6

A-3951-16T2

With regard to prong three, the judge found that the Division made 

reasonable efforts at reunification, including providing Doris with various 

evaluations, numerous treatment programs, and other assistance. The court also 

found that the Division had adequately explored alternatives to termination, but 

none of those alternatives proved viable.

Finally, with regard to prong four, the judge relied on expert testimony 

and found that the children's need for permanency was paramount and that 

termination of Doris' parental rights would not do more harm than good. In that 

regard, the judge found that Doris failed to offer the children a reasonable 

prospect of permanency. In contrast, he found that Irene would benefit from the 

permanency offered by her foster parents who were prepared to adopt her. The 

judge noted that Henry had extensive emotional and developmental issues, but 

also found that he would benefit from the chance of permanency by being 

available for adoption. Consequently, the judge terminated Doris' parental 

rights and granted the Division guardianship of the children.

On this appeal, Doris argues that the court erred in finding each of the four 

prongs under the best interests of the child test. We disagree. Each of the court's 

findings concerning the four prongs is supported by substantial credible 

evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012). 
7

A-3951-16T2

Moreover, Judge Paganelli correctly summarized the law and correctly applied 

his factual findings to the law.

With regard to prong one, Doris also argues that the court improperly 

relied on the March 2015 finding of abuse or neglect. Abuse or neglect findings 

under Title Nine "cannot be given collateral or preclusive effect in any 

subsequent and related Title Thirty proceedings." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family 

Servs. v. R.D., 207 N.J. 88, 93 (2011). Here, Judge Paganelli took notice of the 

March 2015 finding, but did not give it collateral or preclusive effect. Instead, 

the judge made independent findings. In that regard, the judge also relied on 

multiple positive drug tests and non-compliance with offered services and 

psychological evaluations. Therefore, the court independently found by clear 

and convincing evidence that Henry's and Irene's "safety, health and 

development has been and will continue to be endangered by their relationship" 

with Doris.

Affirmed.