RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4130-16T2

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF

CHILD PROTECTION AND

PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

D.C.,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

GUARDIANSHIP OF A.C.,

a Minor.

 

Submitted October 17, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Reisner.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, 

Docket No. FG-16-0097-16.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 5, 2018
2

A-4130-16T2

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (John A. Salois, Designated Counsel, on the 

briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Matthew D. Lane, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minor (Cory H. Cassar, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

D.C. appeals from a May 16, 2017 order terminating her parental rights to

A.C.,1 who was then two and one-half years old. Judge Richard M. Freid 

rendered a thorough and thoughtful thirty-eight-page written decision. For the 

reasons he stated, we affirm.

Judge Freid terminated D.C.'s parental rights because he found the 

Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) satisfied all four prongs 

of the best interests of the child test found in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear 

and convincing evidence. During the course of some twenty pages, Judge Freid

detailed: the circumstances which brought the child to the Division's attention, 

the agency's unsuccessful efforts at extending services to the mother, the fact 

 

1

 A.C.'s father is presumed to be H.C. He has surrendered his rights and does 

not participate in this appeal.
3

A-4130-16T2

that the two relative resources D.C. named each already had an older child of 

D.C. and could not care for another, and that A.C. was securely bonded to the 

resource parents, who wished to adopt. A.C. has no bond to his mother, with 

whom, at times, he was fearful. 

In reaching his decision, Judge Freid credited the expert opinion of the 

psychologist retained by the Division to conduct the bonding evaluations, who 

concluded that A.C. would be at risk if placed with his mother. The psychologist 

opined that D.C. suffered from severe cognitive limitations that limited her 

ability to reason and make appropriate judgments for herself or her child, was 

prone to unpredictable behavior, paranoia, anxiety, and social isolation, and 

suffered from a personality disorder with paranoid and narcissistic features. 

This, the psychologist testified, when joined with D.C.'s history of marijuana, 

PCP, alcohol abuse, and chronic homelessness, meant D.C. could not provide 

the child with a permanent, safe, and secure home in the foreseeable future. 

That same psychologist evaluated the resource parents, with whom the 

child was bonded. He considered them capable of providing him with a 

permanent, safe, and secure home. 

The psychologist also opined that A.C. would not suffer harm if 

permanently separated from his mother. If A.C. was removed from the resource
4

A-4130-16T2

parents and returned to D.C., however, she would not be able to ameliorate the 

serious and enduring harm the child would suffer. 

The judge took into account D.C.'s history of homelessness, chronic 

unemployment, and lack of engagement with the host of services the Division 

extended to her. He incorporated into his analysis D.C.'s failure to exercise 

visitation reasonably or consistently. For example, the Division agreed to D.C.'s

request for visitation to take place at a shopping mall. During the visit, D.C. 

shoplifted. Those visits that did occur were fraught with problems, including 

D.C.'s intermittent threatening and aggressive behavior towards staff. 

On appeal, D.C. essentially challenges Judge Freid's application of the 

best interest statute in its entirety, both as to his factual findings and legal 

conclusions:

I. THE DIVISION FAILED TO ESTABLISH BY 

CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT 

WAS NECESSARY TO TERMINATE [D.C.'S] 

PARENTAL RIGHTS IN ORDER TO PROTECT HER 

CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS. 

A. The Trial Court Improperly Determined That the 

Division Proved by Clear and Convincing 

Evidence That [A.C.'s] Health and Development 

Had Been or Will Be Endangered by [D.C.] and 

[the Division] Failed to Present Substantial, 

Credible Evidence of Continuing Harm and 

Consequently the Judgment Must Be Reversed.
5

A-4130-16T2

B. Given [D.C.'s] Compliance with the Division's 

Requirements for Services, [the Division] Failed 

to Present Sufficient Evidence to Support the 

Trial Court's Conclusion that the Division 

Satisfied its Obligation to Demonstrate by Clear 

and Convincing Proof that [D.C.] was Unwilling 

and Unable to Eliminate the Harm to [A.C.].

C. [The Division] Did Not Prove by Clear and 

Convincing Evidence That It Made Reasonable 

Efforts to Reunite [A.C.] with [D.C.].

D. The Trial Court's Conclusion that the 

Termination of Parental Rights Would Not Do 

More Harm than Good and that [A.C.] Would 

Suffer Severe and Enduring Harm if His Parental 

Rights Were Terminated is Not Supported by the 

Record.

We are bound to "uphold the factual findings undergirding the trial court's 

decision if they are supported by 'adequate, substantial and credible evidence' 

on the record." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 

(2007) (quoting In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 

1993)). We will not disturb a family court's decision to terminate parental rights, 

provided that there is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the 

court's findings. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 

(2008) (citing In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440, 472 (2002)). "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 
6

A-4130-16T2

there is not a denial of justice." Ibid. (citing N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. 

v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007)). 

D.C.'s assertions on appeal that Judge Freid's conclusions are not 

supported by the record do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. See R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Judge Freid's detailed factual findings are in fact clearly 

supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Thus, we will not 

disturb them. The legal conclusion that the best interests of the child would be 

served by termination is supported by those findings. There is simply no merit 

to the issues raised on appeal. 

A.C. is entitled to a safe, secure, and loving permanent home. Although 

D.C. no doubt loves her child, she is not capable now or in the foreseeable future 

of providing him with such a home. 

Affirmed.