RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-4544-16T3

 A-4545-16T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

K.B. and M.M.,

Defendants-Appellants,

__________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP 

OF M.M., a minor.

__________________________________________

Submitted September 24, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Sabatino and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, 

Docket No. FG-19-0027-16.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant K.B. in A-4544-16 (Carol A. Weil, 

Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the briefs).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 1, 2018
2

A-4544-16T3

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant M.M. in A-4545-16 (Lauren Derasmo, 

Designated Counsel, on the briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent in A-4544-16 and A-4545-16 (Jason W. 

Rockwell, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; 

Victoria A. Galinski, Deputy Attorney General, on the 

brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minor in A-4544-16 and A-4545-16 

(Charles M. Ouslander, Designated Counsel, on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, the mother, defendant K.B., and the father, 

defendant M.M., each seek reversal of the trial court's termination of their 

respective parental rights as their son, M.M.

1

The son was born in January 2015. The Division of Child Protection and 

Permanency ("Division"), which was already aware of the mother's pregnancy,

was notified by the hospital that the child tested positive for several drugs at 

birth. In addition, the Division had a prior history with the mother due to 

concerns about her substance abuse and the physical neglect of her daughter, 

 

1 We use initials in this opinion to protect the parties' privacy. R. 1:38-3(d)(12). 

Because the defendant father and the minor son both share the same initials 

(M.M.), we shall refer to them as "father" and "son."
3

A-4544-16T3

G.B., which resulted in the removal of G.B. from the mother nine months before 

the son's birth. The mother's parental rights to G.B. were terminated in 2016. 

Nine days after his birth, the son was removed by the Division and placed 

with resource parents. He has lived with them ever since, and they wish to adopt 

him. 

The father, who the Division ultimately identified through paternity 

testing, also has a previous history with the Division. His older child is in the 

custody of her maternal grandparents.

Both parents have a prolonged history of drug abuse, incarceration, 

unstable housing, and a host of other behavioral problems. The Division offered 

them both many services, which were not successful, mainly due to the father's 

lack of cooperation and the mother's failure to remain in contact with 

caseworkers. The mother missed numerous visits, and dropped out of sight at 

times. She walked out of the bonding evaluation before it was completed. The 

father did cooperate with the bonding evaluation, but the expert conducting that 

evaluation, Dr. Michael Singer, concluded the son's best interests are in 

remaining with the resource parents. There are no suitable relative caretakers.

Both parents failed to appear at the guardianship trial. They put on no 

competing witnesses. Judge Michael C. Gaus, who presided over the trial, found 
4

A-4544-16T3

the Division had proven all four prongs of the termination statute, N.J.S.A. 

30:4C-15.1(a), by clear and convincing evidence.

On appeal, the father challenges the court's findings on all four prongs of 

the statute, while the mother only challenges the findings on prongs three and 

four. In essence, the parents argue the trial court's findings are not supported by 

the weight of the evidence and the Division and the court did not adequately 

explore alternatives to adoption. The parents also contend they were not 

afforded adequate visitation and other resources. The Law Guardian has joined 

with the Division in urging us to affirm the trial court's decision.

"Review of a trial court's termination of parental rights is limited." N.J. 

Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 278 (2007). An appellate 

court must uphold the trial court's factual findings if they are supported by 

adequate, substantial, credible evidence in the record. N.J. Div. of Youth & 

Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448-49 (2012); M.M., 189 N.J. at 279. 

Moreover, credibility determinations are entitled to particular deference due to 

the trial court's superior ability to evaluate the veracity of witnesses who 

testified before it. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 

552 (2014); F.M., 211 N.J. at 448; M.M., 189 N.J. at 279.
5

A-4544-16T3

Applying this standard of review to defendants' arguments in light of the 

record, we affirm the termination of their respective parental rights, 

substantially for the sound reasons expressed in Judge Gaus's June 12, 2017 

written opinion. The court's decision is amply supported by substantial credible 

evidence in the record and does not misapply the governing law. Although we 

recognize that the son is presently only three years of age, the unrefuted proofs 

presented by the Division showing defendants' inability to raise him, their past 

failures respecting their other children, the Division's reasonable efforts to 

provide services, and the child's strong bond with his resource parents, all 

heavily support the four statutory criteria.

Affirmed.