RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2883-18T2

NEW JERSEY DIVISION 

OF CHILD PROTECTION

AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

J.T.,

Defendant,

and

G.I.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF M.M.I,

a Minor.

_____________________________

Submitted October 10, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes, Haas and Mayer.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 17, 2019
2

A-2883-18T2

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County, Docket 

No. FG-15-0007-19.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Robyn A. Veasey, Deputy Public Defender, 

of counsel; Kimberly A. Burke, Designated Counsel, on 

the briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Alicia Y. Bergman, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, Law Guardian, 

attorney for minor (Lynn B. Norcia, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant G.I.,1the biological father of M.M.I. (Mary), born in March 

2013, appeals from the February 19, 2019 judgment of guardianship terminating 

his parental rights to the child.2 Defendant contends that the Division of Child 

Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to prove each prong of N.J.S.A. 

 

1

 We refer to the adult parties by initials, and to the child by a fictitious name 

to protect their privacy. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).

2

 The judgment also terminated the parental rights of Mary's biological mother, 

J.T., who voluntarily surrendered her parental rights to L.S., a maternal relative, 

who wants to adopt the child. J.T. has not appealed the trial court's decision to 

terminate her parental rights.
3

A-2883-18T2

30:4C-15(a) by clear and convincing evidence. The Law Guardian supports the 

termination on appeal as it did before the trial court.

Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we are satisfied that 

the evidence in favor of the guardianship petition overwhelmingly supports the 

decision to terminate defendant's parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm 

substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Madelin F. Einbinder in her 

thorough oral decision rendered on February 19, 2019.

We will not recite in detail the history of the Division's interactions with 

Mary and her parents. Instead, we incorporate by reference the factual findings 

and legal conclusions contained in Judge Einbinder's decision. We add the 

following comments. 

In July 2017, the Division conducted a "Dodd removal"3 of Mary from 

defendant and J.T. The Division alleged that defendant had a chronic substance 

abuse problem, and was addicted to cocaine, heroin, and other forms of opioids. 

Defendant also suffered from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and had a history of domestic violence 

involving J.T. Despite repeated services and programs offered by the Division, 

 

3

 A "Dodd removal" is an emergent removal of a minor without a court order 

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.82 (the Dodd Act). N.J. Div. of Youth & 

Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17, 26 n.11 (2011).
4

A-2883-18T2

including referrals for substance abuse and mental health treatment, supervised 

visitation, and psychological evaluations, defendant was unable or unwilling to 

take any meaningful steps to address the long-standing problems that prevented 

him from being able to safely parent Mary. 

In December 2018, defendant threatened to kidnap Mary and take her to 

the Bahamas. J.T. obtained a temporary restraining order against defendant, 

which prohibited further contact with Mary.

Dr. David Brandwein, the Division's expert in forensic and clinical 

psychology, evaluated defendant and found he "ha[d] co-occurring trauma and 

substance-related disorders as well as problematic personality patterns that 

require consistent, long-term treatment in order for [defendant] to meet his own 

needs, never mind the needs of his daughter." Thus, Dr. Brandwein concluded 

that Mary would be at risk of suffering severe physical or psychological harm if 

she were placed in defendant's care.

Dr. Brandwein's bonding evaluation between defendant and Mary 

revealed that the child did not have a secure bond with her father and, therefore, 

would not endure any lasting harm if their relationship was severed. On the 

other hand, Dr. Brandwein opined that Mary and L.S. had a secure bond that 
5

A-2883-18T2

"ha[d] the capacity to support [Mary] through the remainder of childhood and 

into adolescence and adulthood."

Defendant did not attend the trial and did not present any witnesses on his 

own behalf.

In her thoughtful opinion, Judge Einbinder reviewed the evidence 

presented at the trial, and concluded that (1) 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); and (2) termination of defendant's parental rights was in Mary's 

best interests. In this appeal, our review of the trial judge's decision is limited. 

We defer to her expertise as a Family Part judge, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 

413 (1998), and we are bound by her factual findings so long as they are 

supported by sufficient credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. 

v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 279 (2007) (citing In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 N.J. 

Super. 172, 188 (App. Div. 1993)).

Applying these principles, we conclude that Judge Einbinder's factual 

findings are fully supported by the record and, in light of those facts, her legal

conclusions are unassailable.

 Affirmed.