## RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 4397
- 15T3
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD P ROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. S.P.,
Defendant
- Appellant,
and Y.M.,
Defendant.

______________________________ ________ IN THE MATTER OF P.P., S.P., O.P., R.P. and A.K.B.,

Minors.

_____________________________________________________

Submitted October 11, 2017

– Decided Before Judges Fisher and Sumners. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Par t, Atlantic County, Docket No. FN - 01
- 0 172
- 10. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Anthony J. Vecchio, Designated Counsel, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " 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.

October 18, 20172 A - 4397
- 15T3 Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kimberly S. Dinenberg, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, La w Guardian, attorney for minors (Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM This action, commenced by the Division of Child Prote ction and Permanency, asserted that defendants Y.M. and S.P. abused or neglected their infant child R.P., who was born in January 2010
and who sustained skull and rib injuries at three different times within a two

- week peri od in or around April 2010 . This is now the third time the matter has come before us. On the first occasion, we granted leave to appeal and summarily reversed an order entered in favor of def endants because the trial judge 's findings "d[id] not account for" N.J.S.A. 9:6
- 8.46(a)(2), which, as we then said, specifies that when the Division submits " 'proof of injuries sustained by a child or of the condition of a child of such a nature as would ordinarily not be sustained or exist e xcept by reason of the acts or om issions of the parent, ' such proofs 'shall be prima facie evidence that a child . . . is an abused or neglected child.'" Following that

r emand, the judge concluded the shifting of the burden of3 A - 4397
- 15T3

persuasion to defendants compelled a finding that defendants abused or neglected the child . Also, after providing defendants with the opportunity to present expert testimony, the judge reversed herself and precluded that testimony . That determination prompted the secon d appeal . For reasons set forth in an unpublished opinion, we agreed t hat the burden of persuasion was properly shifted to defendants but concluded that the trial judge erred in refusing defendants the opportunity to provide expert testimony to contest the cause of the child's injuries. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. Y.M. and S.P. , Nos. A - 3450/3507

- 11 (App. Div. Jan. 15, 2014). Following that remand, another judge conducted a three

- day hearing that included expert testimony from both defendants and the Division. By way of his written opinion, Judge Jeffrey J.
Waldman explained how the defense expert had failed to persuade him that defendants had not abused or neglected the child.
Defendant S.P. appeals, 1 arguing only: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT [S.P.] ABUSED AND NEGLECTED HIS CHILDREN BECAUSE THERE WAS NO E VIDENCE PRESENTED THAT HE CAUSED THE INJURIES TO [R.P.] AND WHERE [S.P.] PRESENTED EXPERT TESTIMONY EXPLAINING POTENTIAL CAUSES OF THE INJURY OTHER THAN ABUSE.

1 Only S.P., the child's father, appeals. The child's mother, Y.M., had appealed past rulings but does not now appeal.4 A - 4397
- 15T3

We find insufficient merit in this argument to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11
- 3(e)(1)(E). Judge Waldman's findings were based on substantial evidence he found credible and, for that reason, we must defer to those findings. Cesare v. Cesare , 154 N.J. 394, 411
- 12 (1974 ); N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. H .B. , 375 N.J. Super. 148, 172 (App. Div. 2005). Finding no principled reason for second

- guessing the judge's findings or the conclusions drawn from those findings , we reject defendant S.P.'s arguments. Affirmed.