RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1914-20

NEW JERSEY DIVISION

OF CHILD PROTECTION

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

S.L.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and 

J.W., and N.F.,

Defendants,

_________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF K.L.W.,

K.F., and K.F., minors.

_________________________

Argued December 8, 2021 – Decided February 4, 2022

Before Judges Gilson and Gummer.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1914-20

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FG-02-0047-20.

Adrienne Kalosieh, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, 

argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, 

Public Defender, attorney; Adrienne Kalosieh, on the 

briefs).

John J. Lafferty, IV, Deputy Attorney General, argued 

the cause for respondent (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting 

Attorney General, attorney; Jane C. Schuster, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; John J. Lafferty, IV, on 

the brief).

David Valentin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, 

argued the cause for minors (Joseph E. Krakora, Public 

Defender, Law Guardian, attorney; David Valentin, on 

the brief).

PER CURIAM

S.L. (Sue) appeals from a February 24, 2021 judgment terminating her 

parental rights to her three minor children and granting the Division of Child 

Protection and Permanency (Division) guardianship of the children with the plan 

that the children be adopted by their maternal grandmother.1 Sue argues that the 

Division failed to prove the four prongs of the best interests of the child standard 

necessary for the termination of parental rights. N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The 

1

 We use initials and fictious names to protect privacy interests and to maintain 

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

A-1914-20

Division and the children's law guardian urged that we affirm the judgment and 

allow the adoption to proceed. Having reviewed the record in light of the parties' 

contentions and the applicable law, we affirm substantially for the reasons 

explained by Judge Michael Antoniewicz in his thorough, forty-page written 

opinion, dated February 24, 2021.

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

he rendered after a two-day trial. Accordingly, we need only summarize some

of the relevant facts. Sue is the biological mother of three children: K.L.W. 

(Katie), born in March 2017, and twins K.F. (Krystal) and K.F. (Kevin), born in 

March 2018. J.W. is Katie's biological father, and he gave an identified 

surrender of his parental rights. N.F. is Krystal's and Kevin's biological father,

and he did not participate in the trial. The family court terminated N.F.'s

parental rights, finding that he had abandoned the children. Neither father has 

appealed.

Sue suffers from mental health issues, including bipolar disorder, anxiety, 

and depression. Because Sue has not properly treated those disorders, her 

disorders have led to an unstable life. She has had a hard time holding a job and 

she is often transient without a stable home. Sue has also been inconsistent in 

attending to the medical needs of the children. 
4

A-1914-20

The children were removed from Sue's care in 2018 and 2019. The first 

incident occurred when Sue had a physical fight with her roommate after she 

had left the children unattended for a long period of time. After working with 

Sue, the Division returned the children to her care. The second removal took 

place in February 2019, when Sue failed to adhere to a safety-protection plan 

and there were concerns about her failure to attend to the medical needs of the 

two youngest children. The children have not been in Sue's care since 2019, and 

they have spent most of their lives in the care of their maternal grandmother,

who wants to adopt them.

The guardianship trial took place in December 2020. The Division called 

three witnesses: Kimberly Megman, a Division worker, Dr. Samiris Sostre, an 

expert in psychiatry, and Dr. Barry Katz, an expert in psychology. The Division 

also submitted numerous documents into evidence. Sue testified on her own 

behalf and called no other witnesses.

Based on that evidence, Judge Antoniewicz made extensive findings of 

facts and conclusions of law. He found the three witnesses who testified on 

behalf of the Division to be credible and Sue not to be credible. He then found 

that the Division had proven each of the four prongs of the best-interests

standard by clear and convincing evidence.
5

A-1914-20

Addressing prong one, Judge Antoniewicz found that Sue had failed to 

adequately address her mental health problems, which resulted in an unsafe and 

unstable environment for the children. Relying on the unrebutted testimony of 

Dr. Sostre and Dr. Katz, the judge found that Sue had bipolar disorder, which 

she failed to treat. Because of that untreated mental disorder, the judge found 

that the children had been exposed to domestic violence and an unstable living 

environment.

Turning to the second prong, Judge Antoniewicz found that Sue was 

unwilling to address her bipolar disorder and returning the children to her care 

would endanger the safety, health, and development of the children. Relying on 

the testimony of Dr. Sostre and Dr. Katz, both of whom had evaluated Sue, Judge 

Antoniewicz found that Sue minimized and denied her need for treatment, which 

demonstrated that she had little chance of properly addressing her conditions. 

Accordingly, the judge found that Sue was "unable and unwilling to eliminate 

the harm" facing her children.

Concerning prong three, the judge found that the Division had made 

reasonable efforts to provide services to Sue. Those services included 

psychiatric evaluations, psychological evaluations, mental health treatment 
6

A-1914-20

services, therapeutic supervised visitation with the children, parenting classes, 

parent mentoring, and transportation assistance.

Judge Antoniewicz also found that the Division had considered 

alternatives to the termination of Sue's parental rights. In that regard, the judge 

credited the testimony of the Division worker who had testified that she 

explained what kinship legal guardianship was to the maternal grandmother, but 

the grandmother preferred adoption.

Finally, addressing prong four, Judge Antoniewicz found the Division had 

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

will not do more harm than good. The judge relied on the unrebutted testimony 

of Dr. Katz who had conducted psychological and bonding evaluations and who 

had opined that termination of Sue's parental rights would not cause any 

enduring harm to the children. By contrast, Dr. Katz opined that separating the 

children from their maternal grandmother would cause the children severe and 

enduring harm and Sue would not be able to mitigate that harm if she had 

custody of the children. The judge also found that the children's best opportunity 

for a healthy upbringing with a competent, nurturing caretaker was if they stayed 

in the care of their maternal grandmother.
7

A-1914-20

On this appeal, Sue argues that the family court erred in finding each of 

the four prongs under the best-interests standard. In essence, she disputes the 

fact findings made by Judge Antoniewicz. 

A review of the record establishes that each of the court's findings 

concerning the four prongs is supported by substantial and credible evidence. 

N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012). Moreover, 

Judge Antoniewicz correctly summarized the law and correctly applied his 

factual findings to the law. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. P.O., 456 

N.J. Super. 399, 407 (App. Div. 2018). Indeed, our Supreme Court has 

recognized: "In a termination of parental rights trial, the evidence often takes 

the form of expert opinion testimony by psychiatrists, psychologists, and other 

mental health professionals." N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. R.L.M., 

236 N.J. 123, 146 (2018). Judge Antoniewicz properly relied, in part, on the 

unrebutted testimony of Dr. Sostre and Dr. Katz, both of whom had conducted 

several evaluations and had factual bases for their opinions. Judge Antoniewicz 

also found that other evidence supported and corroborated the testimony of the 

two experts.

Affirmed.