### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 3776

- 17T2
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. Y.M.K., Defendant

- Appellant.

_____ ________________________ I N THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF A.M.K., JR.,

a M inor.

_____ ________________________

Submitted February 27, 2019

– Decided May 7, 2019 Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG

- 07

- 0023

- 18.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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

- 3776

- 17T2 Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant ( Carol A. Weil, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
G urbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent ( Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Casey J. Woodruff , Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor ( Meredith A

. Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Cory H. Cassar, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant, Y.M.K., appeals from an April 10, 2018 guardianship judgment terminating her parental rights to her child , A.M.K., now nine years old. The child's father is deceased. Defendant contends plaintiff, the Division of Child Protection and Permanenc y (the Division), failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that terminating her parental rights was in her child's best interests, the standard codified in N.J.S.A. 30:4C

- 15.1(a). The Division and the Law Guardian oppose the appeal. We affirm. Parents have a constitutionally protected, fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and supervision of their children. Santosky v. Kramer , 455
U.S. 745, 753 (1982); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M. , 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007). Nonethele ss, that interest is not absolute and "must be3 A

- 3776

- 17T2

balanced against the State's parens patriae responsibility to protect the welfare of children." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L. , 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007) (quoting M.M. 1 89 N.J. at 294

- 95). In some cases, termination of a parent's constitutionally protected interest may be necessary to protect a child. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W. , 103 N.J. 591, 599 (1986). The Division is "the State agency for the care, custody, guardianship, main tenance and protection of children." State ex rel. J.S. , 202 N.J. 465, 477 (2010) (quoting N.J.S.A. 30:4C

- 2(a)). When the Division seeks to terminate a person's parental rights, a court must determine if doing so is in the child's or
children's best inte rests. The "best interests" standard is codified in N.J.S.A.
30:4C

- 15.1(a), which requires the Division prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) The child's safety, health or development has been

or will continue to be endangered by the parental relat ionship; (2) The parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable home for the child and the delay of permanent placement wil l add to the harm

. . . .; (3) The [D]iv ision has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the circumstances which led to the child's placement4 A

- 3776

- 17T2 outside the home and the court has considered alternatives to termination of parental rights; and (4) Termination of pare ntal rights will not do more harm than good. See also A.W. , 103 N.J. at 604

- 11. Family courts deciding the profound issues involving the welfare of children have special expertise and their fact finding is entitled to deference by appellate courts. Ce sare v. Cesare , 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). For that reason, we will not disturb a Family Part judge's findings of fact unless "convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidenc e as to offend the interests of justice." Id. at 412 (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv 'rs Ins. Co. , 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). We owe no deference, however, to "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts." Manalapan Realty , L P v. Twp. Comm of Manalapan , 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). Here, to prove the s tatutory criteria for terminating parental rights , the Division presented the testimony of two employees, an Adoption Worker and a Supervising Family Service Specialist in the Permanency

- Adoption unit. The5 A

- 3776

- 17T2

Division also presented the testimony of a psychi atrist and psy chol ogist, and introduce d into evidence fifty

- two documentary exhibits.
Defendant testi f

ied against the ad v ice of her counsel. Suffice it to say that her testimony illust rat ed her s igni fic ant men t al health issues. Following the guardianshi p trial, Judge James R. Paganelli issued a comprehensive written opinion in which he concluded the Division had sustained its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the statutory criteria delineated in N.J.S.A. 30:4C

- 15.1 for terminating parent al rights. Judge Paganelli recounted the psychiatrist's recitation of defendant's "history of alcohol abuse, psychiatric hospitalization, delusions, grandiosity, and unkemptness." The judge found significant the psychiatrist's testimony that defendant 's lack of insight into her bi

- polar disorder contributed to her inability to manage and treat her symptoms. The judge also noted the psychiatrist's diagnosis of defendant's schizoaffective disorder, a combination of bi

- polar disorder and schizophrenia, the latter a psychotic disorder. Judge Paganelli found credible the psychiatrist's opinion that due to the nature of defendant's symptoms, namely, her disorganization, "her failure to recognize her own disorder and how it impacted others, her inability to beh ave socially, her poor6 A

- 3776

- 17T2

executive functioning, her inability to recognize cues in the environment, she has been rendered unable to safely parent [her child]." Judge Paganelli also found credible the testimony of the Division's expert psycholog ist , who ha d examined defendant on four occasions. The judge noted the psychologist's opinion that defendant's child had come to view defendant "as a central parental figure in his life" and that should defendant's parental rights be terminated, the child "would lik ely experience a negative reaction that would produce development disruptions." The judge also credited, however, the psychologist's opinion that defendant was unable to provi d e her child "with consistent adequate care and supervisi o n due to her mental il lness," and "that any reaction [the child] may experience from being permanently separated from his mother could be mitigated through achieving permanency in [a] supportive home and through psychotherapy." Last, the judge found credible the psychologist 's opinion that "in this particular case, the risk of harm to [the child], if returned to [defendant's] care, outweighs the risk of experiencing a negative reaction to termination of their relationship." Defendant contends on appeal that the Division di d not appropriately consider alternatives to termination of defendant's parental rights. She insists7 A

- 3776

- 17T2

the Division failed to clearly and convincingly establish the third statutory prong of the best interests criteria. She also contends the Division failed to prove that
termination of defendant's parental rights would not do more harm than good. The record refutes defendant's arguments. As Judge Paganelli aptly noted, "[t]he diligence of the Division's efforts on behalf of a parent is not measured by t heir success." The judge detailed the Division's provision of services to defendant, as well as the Division's consideration of alternatives to termination. The judge noted the Division had conducted relative assessments and had attempted to place the ch ild w ith a sibling in Pennsylvania. The Division's

e xpert testimony refutes defendant's contention that the Division failed to prove termination of parental rights would not do more harm than good

. We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Paganelli in his written opinion. Judge Paganelli's opinion recounts in detail the Division's proofs, and his analysis of those proofs track s the statutory elements of N.J.S.A.
30:4C

- 15.1(a). The judge's factual determinations are amply supported b y credible evidence in the record. Considering defendant's arguments and Judge Paganelli's decision in light of the record and controlling legal principles, it can hardly be said that the judge "went so wide of the mark that a mistake must have been made. " M.M. , 189 N.J. at 279.8 A

- 3776

- 17T2

Affirmed.