### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSE Y APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 4728

- 18T1
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. L.M., Defendant,
and
S.S. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

_________________________ IN THE MATTER OF S.J., a minor

.

_________________________

Submitted April 22 , 2020

– Decided May 14, 2020 Before Judges Koblitz and Mawla

.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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

- 4728

- 18T1 On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division , Family Part, Gloucester County, Docket No. FN

- 0 8

- 00 55

- 1 7

. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant ( Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Steven Edward Miklosey , D esignated Counsel, on the brief ).
Gurbi r S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent ( Jane C. Schuster , Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Cynthia Sozio , Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor ( Meredith Alexis Pollock , Deputy Public Defender , o f counsel; Joseph H. Ruiz, Designated Counsel , on the brief ).
PER CURIAM
Defendant S.S. 1 appeals from a May 7, 2019 Family Part order terminating his parental rights to his daughter , who is now seven years old . L.M. , the biological mother, executed an identified surrender 2 to both the maternal great

grandparents and maternal aunt and uncle , whichever couple was approved by

1 We use initials to preserve the privacy of the parties. R. 1:38

- 3(d)(12).

2 "In practice, an 'identified surrender' means that those exact person(s) as to whom the surrender is made shall adopt the children. If for some reason the 'identified' persons are not able to adopt the child, the surrender becomes 'void' and the parental rights of surrendering parent(s) are reinstated. See N.J.S.A. 9:3

- 38(j); N.J.S.A. 9:3

- 41; N.J.S.A. 30:4C

- 23." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. D.M.B. , 375 N.J. Super. 141, 145 (App. Div. 2005).3 A

- 4728

- 18T1

the court

. Defendant failed to attend the guardianship trial. The La w Guardi an urges affirmance. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge John
J. Matheussen in h is thorough oral opinion issued with the order. The evidence is outlined in detail in the judge's opinion. A summary will
suffice here. Defendant never provided sustained care for his daughter or stable housing and she does not have a strong relationship with him. He was not able to offer his daughte r a home at the time of trial but suggested his mother as a resource parent

. A fter an investigation, the paternal grandparents who live in Pennsylvania were ruled out through the Interstate Compact on the Placement
of Children (ICPC) , N.J.S.A. 9:23

- 5

. De fendant was incarcerated multiple times
and had domestic violence and substance abuse issues . He did not cooperate
with services to address these issues. The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) offered defendant substance abuse treatme nt, batterer's intervention, parenting time and a bonding evaluation. Defendant did not fully cooperate with any service offered.
In h is comprehensive opinion, Judge Matheussen found that the Division had proven all four prongs of the best interests test by clear and convincing
evidence , N.J.S.A. 30:4C

- 15.1(a) (1) to (4) , and that termination of defendant' s parental rights was in the child's best interests. On this appeal, our review of4 A

- 4728

- 18T1

the trial judge's decision is limit ed. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Se rvs. v. M.M. , 189 N.J. 261, 278 (2007). We defer to his expertise as a Family Part judge,
Cesare v. Cesare , 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998), and we are bound by h is factual findings so long as they are supported by "adequate, substantial and credible
evidence." M.M. , 189 N.J. at 279 (quoting In re Guardianship of J.T. , 269 N.J. Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)). After reviewing the record, we conclude
that the tria l judge's factual findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, h is legal conclusions are unassailable. On appeal , defendant argues that the Division failed to prove prongs two,
three and four of N.J.S.A. 30:4C

- 15.1(a) and his da ughter should have been placed with his mother in spite of her failure to gain ICPC approval

. Th e s e arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion , R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E) , especially in light of the child's p roposed adoption by maternal relatives

. Affirmed.