RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4430-15T3

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD 

PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

K.W., Sr.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF 

K.W., Jr., a minor.

____________________________________

Submitted February 28, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Sumners.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, 

Docket No. FG-15-4-15.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney

for appellant (Beryl Foster-Andres, 

Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, 

attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Angela 

Melchionna, Deputy Attorney General, on the 

brief). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

March 14, 2017
2 A-4430-15T3

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law 

Guardian, attorney for minor (James J. Gross,

Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant K.W., Sr. appeals from a May 31, 2016 Family Part 

order, terminating his parental rights to his son K.W., Jr.,

(Keith),

1 who was about three-year-old at the time of the 

guardianship trial. The order also terminated the parental rights 

of the mother, D.W., who choose not to appeal. Defendant argues 

the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) did not 

prove the required statutory factors by clear and convincing 

evidence. See N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The Law Guardian supports 

the termination. After reviewing the record in light of the 

contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm substantially for the 

reasons set forth by Judge Joseph L. Foster in his written opinion 

issued with the order.

The history and evidence are set forth at length in Judge 

Foster's opinion and need not be repeated here. A brief summary 

will suffice. Defendant is a registered sex offender as a result 

of a conviction for unlawful sexual contact with a minor, and was 

also convicted for failing to register. In addition, he was 

 

1 We use a pseudonym to protect his identity pursuant to Rule 1:38-

3(d)(12).
3 A-4430-15T3

convicted of two other crimes: offensive touching for grabbing and 

kissing a minor, and child endangerment involving his then 

girlfriend's five-year-old son. Defendant has mental health 

issues dating back to his adolescence that have been pinpointed 

as the cause of episodes of domestic violence. He fathered three 

other children but did not parent them. 

Defendant has never cared for Keith and has no bond with him. 

Keith was removed from his mother's care and custody upon being 

released from the hospital after his birth, and since then has 

remained with his resource parents who are willing to adopt him. 

Defendant failed to successfully engage in services - counseling 

for sexual offenses, domestic abuse, mental health, and parenting

- offered by the Division in its initial effort to further 

reunification. Throughout the Division's involvement with Keith, 

defendant lacked stable and suitable housing. The Division 

presented uncontroverted expert testimony that defendant did not 

eliminate his risk of future sexual, physical, or domestic abuse, 

and he was unable to parent Keith. Following the conclusion of 

the trial, Judge Foster determined that the Division had proven 

all four prongs of the best interests test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), 

by clear and convincing evidence.

On appeal, defendant presents the following points of 

argument: 
4 A-4430-15T3

I. THE JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT THE FOUR 

PRONGS OF THE BEST INTERESTS TEST FAVORED 

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BECAUSE K.W. 

SR. DID NOT HARM HIS SON OR PLACE HIM AT A 

RISK OF HARM, HAS BEEN CONSISTENT WITH 

PARENTING TIME AND EXHIBITED APPROPRIATE 

BEHAVIOR, COMPLIED WITH THERAPY, AND WAS READY 

TO PARENT, WHILE THE DIVISION NEGLECTED TO 

OFFER HIM APPROPRIATE PARENTING TIME.

A. The trial judge erroneously ruled that 

the first prong of the best interests test 

had been satisfied because K.W. Sr. never 

harmed his son and was appropriate during 

his parenting time.

B. The trial judge erroneously ruled that 

the second prong of the best interests 

test had been satisfied because K.W. Sr. 

was compliant with therapy and the 

Division was required to provide the 

parents with housing assistance.

C. The trial judge erroneously ruled that 

the third prong of the best interests test 

had been satisfied because K.W. Sr. was 

not offered sufficient parenting time.

D. The trial judge erroneously ruled that 

the fourth prong of the best interests 

test had been satisfied because K.W. Sr. 

was ready to parent.

Those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Judge 

Foster's decision is supported by substantial credible evidence. 

See N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 

(2012).

Affirmed.