### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0030- 23
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, Plaintiff-Respondent,

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

__________________ ________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF L.J.P., a minor.

__________________________

Submitted April 10, 2024

– Decided April 19, 202 4 Before Judges Firko and Vanek.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 0030

- 23 On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, Docket No. FG- 19

- 0011

- 23

. Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (L ouis W. Skinner , Designated Counsel, on the briefs ). Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorn ey General, of counsel; Nicholas Joseph Dolinsky, Depu ty Attorney General, on the brief). Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollo ck, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Todd S. Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant D.S. (David) 1 appeals from a judgment of guardianship terminating his parental rights to his biological s on L.J.P. (Luke), born in 2016. 2 Defendant M.P. (Mary), Luke's biological mother, su rrendered her parental

1 We employ initials and pseudonyms to identify the p arties, the child ren , and others to protect the child ren 's privacy and because records relating to Division proceedings held pursuant to Rule 5:12 are excluded from public access under Rule 1:38 -3(d)(12).

2 David also has another daughter who lives with her mother and is not part of this appeal.3 A- 0030

- 23

rights to Luke, and is not a party to this appeal. 3 Judge Michael Paul Wright convened the guardianship trial and rendered an ora l opinion

. David argues the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the statutory four-pr ong best interests test under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). David contends the judge e rred in failing to correctly consider and apply the July 2, 2021 statutory amend ments to the Kinship Legal Guardianship (KLG) Act 4 and avers the judge disregarded the Legislature's intent by giving weight to the resource parents' wi shes to adopt and not protecting his parental rights. David also asserts the judge erred by not exploring KLG as an alternative to termination of his parental rights. The Law Guardian seeks affirmance. We conclude, a fter reviewing the record in light of David's arguments, that the judg e correctly applied the governing legal principles, and sufficient credible evi dence supports the judge's findings. Therefore, we affirm.
I.

3 Mary has another daughter named "Ida," whose father is "Andy." Ida is not part of this appeal.

4 On July 2, 2021, the Legislature enacted L. 2021, c. 154, deleting the last sentence of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(2), which read " [s]uch harm may include evidence that separating the child from [their] res ource family parents would cause serious and enduring emotional or psychologic al harm to the child."4 A- 0030

- 23

We begin our discussion with the legal framework go verning the termination of parental rights. Parents have a constit utionally protected right to the care, custody, and control of their children. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 346 (1999). That right is not absolute. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. S ervs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 553 (2014). At times, a parent's interest must yie ld to the State's obligation to protect children from harm. N.J. Div. of Youth & F am. Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382, 397 (2009); In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N. J. 1, 10 (1992). To effectuate these concerns, the Legislature established the sta ndard for determining when parental rights must be terminated in a child's bes t interests. N.J.S.A. 30:4C15.1(a) requires the Division prove by clear and co nvincing evidence the following four prongs:

(1) The child's safety, health, or development has been or will continue to be endangered by the parental relationship; (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 th e delay of permanent placement will add to the harm; (3) The [D]ivision has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the circumstances which led to the child's placement outside the home and the [judge] has considered alternatives to termination of parental rights; and5 A- 0030

- 23 (4) Termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good. The four prongs are not "discrete and separate," but "relat e to and overlap with one another to provide a comprehensive standar d that identifies a child's best interests." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 348. "The co nsiderations involved [in determinations of parental fitness] are extremely f act sensitive and require particularized evidence that address[es] the specif ic circumstance[s] in the given case." R.G., 217 N.J. at 554 (internal quotation m arks omitted) (second alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 280 (2007) ).
II. A. Family History The pertinent facts and procedural history are full y recounted in Judge Wright's comprehensive oral opinion and need only b e summarized. The Division first became involved with the family in early 2017 because of allegations of drug use and domestic violence. The Division found no abuse or neglect and closed its investigation. David's hist ory includes criminality, mental health problems, homelessness, and dysfunction. He was in the foster care6 A- 0030

- 23

system in Russia and came to the Un ite d States when he was adopted at the age of six. The record shows David was abused as a child by his caretakers in Russia

— putting cigarettes out on him and breaking his bones. David pled guilty and was convicted of two counts of child endangerme nt. 5 He is a Megan's Law registrant and part of his sentence included Parole Supervision for Life. The record shows David violated certain terms of his pa role and Megan's Law restrictions. Mary has a history of homelessness, substance abuse , and mental health problems. On December 11, 2017, the police reported that Mary and Luke were at the police station after she stabbed her boyfriend in what s he described as "selfdefense" during a domestic violence incident. Mary was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and weapons charges. At th e same time, David was incarcerated for the stated sexual assault charges. With both parents in jail, the Division executed an emergent removal 6 of then one-year-old Luke and placed

5 According to David, he went to a party and met two girls who informed him that they were eighteen years old. He then engaged in sexual relations with them.

6 " A 'Dodd removal' refers to the emergency removal of a child from the home without a court order, pursuant to the Dodd Act, which, as amended, is found at7 A- 0030

- 23

him with Greta and Brian, non-relative resource par ents. 7 The judge granted the Division's request for the care, supervision, and custody of Luke. David was granted weekly supervised visitation with Luke while he was incarcerated, which continued on a monthly basis, u ntil October 2018. Mary engaged in treatment for her issues and was reunifi ed with Luke in November 2018. David was still incarcerated at that time. The judge ordered that David's visitation with Luke was subject to Mary's discreti on, which she opted not to continue. In August 2021, the police called the Division with concerns for Luke and Ida, his younger half-sister, after Mary called mul tiple times reporting that someone was at the door. When the police responded , they found no one but observed Mary was delusional and malnourished. Mary , Luke, and Ida were taken to the hospital. Hospital staff members report ed to the Division that Luke was "eating everything put in front of him," had a "red and pink burn mark on his left hand," and Ida was "very thin" and "pale" and had a healing rib fracture.

N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.82. The Dodd Act was autho red by former Senate President Frank J. 'Pat' Dodd in 1974." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. N.S., 412 N.J. Super. 593, 609 n.2 (App. Div. 2010)

.
7 David requested that his adopted parents be assesse d as a placement option, but they declined.8 A- 0030

- 23

The Division conducted a Dodd removal of both child ren. David was still incarcerated at the time. The Division placed Luke with Robert, his maternal grandfather. In September 2021, David was released fr om prison. However, h e was noncompliant with his terms of parole and faile d to appear for a courtordered substance abuse evaluation or rescheduled a ppointments. The judge ordered that David's visitation with Luke was defer red "until clinically indicated to commence" because of David's lack of contact and relationship with the child since 2018. David was placed on "missing status" b y the Division and remained incommunicado for the remainder of 2021 and early 2 022. Based on a tip from Mary, the Division ultimately located David in a Tr enton prison on July 13,
2022. By July 2022, Robert indicated he could not keep th e children past November 2022. The Division transitioned Luke and Ida back to Greta's and Brian's home, where they remain to this day. In No vember 2022, Dr. Jessica Elliot conducted a psychological evaluation of Davi d at the prison, which included an assessment of the appropriateness of vi sitation. 8 Dr. Elliot noted in

8 Dr. Elliot reviewed the Division's Court Report dat ed November 9, 2022, and the evaluation included a clinical interview, menta l status examination, personality assessment inventory, and adult adolesc ent parenting inventory.9 A- 0030

- 23

her report that David was "polite, cooperative, and engaged throughout the evaluation," and he was incarcerated for violating his parole. David reported his criminal history to Dr. Elliot a nd his diagnoses of "[b]ipolar, depression, anxiety, ADHD (Attention De ficit Hyperactivity Disorder)," and substance abuse. Dr. Elliot opined that reunification was possible if David engaged in treatment services and maintained sobriety, housing, and employment. Upon receipt of Dr. Elliot's report, the Division realized she did not have all the information about David's c riminal history, and the Division provided the information to her. After receiving additional information from the Div ision, Dr. Elliot prepared an addendum to her report, explaining Davi d did not address the extent of his two sexual assaults upon minors during the i nitial evaluation. Dr. Elliot opined "this new information substantially changes the formulation of [David's] risk and warrants a more thorough and specialized r isk assessment prior to the commencement of visitation." On December 7, 2022, the Division filed a complaint for guardianship. After being served with the complaint while incarce rated, David expressed his wishes for reunification with Luke. The Division d iscussed David's plan for post -release housing, employment, and services. At the February 2, 2023 return10 A- 0030

- 23

date for the hearing on the order to show cause, th e Law Guardian asked the judge to consider restricting visitation until an update d evaluation of David was performed. On March 20, 2023, the judge ordered Dr . Barry Katz to conduct a psychosexual evaluation of David at the prison. On March 28, 2023, Dr. Katz conducted the following during the eval uation:

a forensic interview; record review; mental status exam; assessment o f parenting skills; the Adult, Adolescent Parenting Inventory, Second Edi tion (AAPI-2.1); the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI); and Sexual Violence Risk -20, Version 2 (SVR- 20 -V2). Dr. Katz observed that David had been incarcerated for most of Luke's life and had not seen him in years. When discussing his sexual offense charges, David reported to Dr. Katz that he did not agree with the charges and t hat he was not "going to sit in class like parole wants and talk about why he i s not going to have sex with kids." David felt both charges were completely false "because [he] w ould not go out with them and [he] called them ugly to their face and a week later [he] got a call from police saying we need to speak to you on this." David decl ined to report anything further about his criminal history because he "did not trust t he system." David informed Dr. Katz that he was not taking his medication becaus e he needed to "get the monkey off [his] back." Although David den ied any suicidal11 A- 0030

- 23

ideations, he reported that "he had thoughts about hurting ot hers, but that he would not do it." David acknowledged that his depression "has led to lack of motivation and lack of caring." When further discussing his drug usage, Davi d said he used marijuana daily, including illegally in jail , denied ever using opiates, but was prescribed Suboxone at the prison because he claimed, "why not." David also sta ted he had been hospitalized twice for mental health issues and had been prescribed psychiatric medication. He attended counseli ng in prison but was discharged due to "budget cuts." David previously underwen t counseling for depression and anxiety. He never completed sex offender therapy an d claimed that he never would. Dr. Katz noted in his report that David presented as paranoid an d inconsistent in his reporting. He also found David "displayed extens ive denial [and] minimalization with regard to his sexual offending behavior, in cluding blaming the victims and assert[ing] that his prior admission and conv iction was incorrect." Regarding his future plans, Dr. Katz found David was "not realistic bas ed upon his pattern of continued antisocial acts, substance abuse and instabil ity." Dr. Katz opined there was a "high risk to a child placed in [David]'s c are or supervision unsupervised" and a "risk of exploitation of minors in his care or supervision and pathological hatred of women." He also noted that since Dav id "has a general12 A- 0030

- 23

understanding of accepted parenting practices, . . . his deficits as a parent are not due to a lack of education but rather are an extension of [David] putt ing his needs before anyone else's, including his children." Based upon the above findings, Dr. Katz ultimately concluded: [David] should not have contact with [Luke] due to the risks involved. The risks to the child would be pr esent during supervised visitation, albeit much higher if visitation were unsupervised. In response to the g oal of [David] eventually being a viable placement for [Lu ke], the results of this evaluation indicate that [David ] would not be able to be a viable caretaker for [Luk e] at this time or in the foreseeable future. With regar d to the issue of supervised visitation, it is not recommended for [David] to have contact with [Luke] at this time or in the foreseeable future. Dr. Katz also found that David presented a low to moderate risk of direct sexual harm to Luke, but posed a high risk of impulse cont rol problems, including anger and exposure to inappropriate sexual stimuli and co ncluded that the harm could not be mitigated even under supervision. Dr. Katz did not consider reunification as a viable option within the foreseeable future. On April 19, 2023, Dr. Gregory Gambone conducted a psychological evaluation of David on behalf of the defense. Dr. Gambone found that David exhibited "thought and behavior patterns that may a ffect his decision making, his ability to control substance abuse, his ability to maintain an independent pro-13 A- 0030

- 23

social life, and his ability to benefit from psycho therapy." With regard to his ability to parent, Dr. Gambone opined that "when st able, substance-free, conflict-free, crime-free, symptom-free, and stress -free, [David] may exhibit adequate executive functioning in learning, problem solving, contingency planning, and social decision-making." Dr. Gambone's report also noted that David has "a s uperficial understanding of the physical, emotional, intellect ual, and social needs of his son" and has a reported history of "disregarding hi s responsibility for his children's health, safety, and stability." Based upon the above findings, Dr. Gambone recommended that David engage in various se rvices, including therapy, parenting skills training, and sex offende r treatment. Dr. Gambone concluded: [David] should not currently be considered to prese nt

an imminent risk of impulsive harm to himself, his son [Luke], or any other person. However, it is also recommended that [David] should not currently be considered capable of adequately parenting any children on an independent basis. Areas of continu ed concern include [David]'s current incarceration, hi s subsequent societal re-entry stressors, and his lac k of regular or consistent contact with his son [Luke] i n the past [four] years. Accordingly, it is recommended that [David] be currently considered appropriate for supervised contact with his son [Luke] during his incarceration and subsequent release, contingent on documented compliance with all court-ordered servic es14 A- 0030

- 23 and Megan's Law supervision. As a means of maximizing his personal stability, interpersonal stability, parenting skills, and coping skills, [Da vid] is strongly encouraged to comply with all of the aforementioned recommendations.
B. The Guardianship Trial The judge held a three-day trial. Caseworker Ashle y Markferding and Dr. Katz testified on behalf of the Division. Dr. Gamb one testified on behalf of David. Markferding testified about the Division's efforts to explore Luke's placement with relatives. Robert was ruled out bec ause he had asked for Luke to be removed from his home. Robert's mother, who lived in the Dominican Republic, was ruled out because neither Mary nor Da vid wanted the children placed out of the country. Mary's aunt was ruled o ut based on an Interstate Compact of the Placement of Children 's denial from New York due to her failure to provide the requisite documentation. David's adoptive pa rents declined to be placement resources. Mary's uncle declined to be considered due to housi ng issues, and Ida's mother refused to get involved in a case involving David. Markferding stated that Luke is a "loving boy, it m akes you smile," he's "affectionate," and "loves his [half-]sister." Mar kferding observed that Luke "remembered [Greta] and . . . loved being in [her] care. And even currently she15 A- 0030

- 23

had lots of kiddos that he thoroughly enjoys playin g with and being around." Markferding testified that she explained the differ ence between KLG and adoption to Greta, and she preferred adoption over KLG but would be open to facilitating a relationship between Luke and David even if she adopted Luke. According to Markferding, Luke did not recall visit ing David at a "locked facility." When Markferding asked Luke if he knew who his "biolo gical father" was, he named the resource father. Markferding testified that she asked Luke if he knew an individual named "David," and he respond ed "no." Dr. Katz was qualified as an expert in psychology, parental fitness, forensic psychology, and sex offenders. When asked about David's childhood trauma and its impact, if any, on the case, Dr. Kat z responded, "traumatized people traumatize people." Dr. Katz noted that Dav id fell into a group referred to as the "antisocial or psychopathic sex offender, " and for those people, "all individuals are viewed as fair game. And what will happen is t hat if they're able to commit a crime or offense against an individual they're entitled to do it and it's the person's fault for being in a vulnerable p osition by the offender's view." Dr. Katz opined that "if they're vulnerable and [Da vid's] able to take advantage of them then he will." Dr. Katz stated that David' s parole violations also speak16 A- 0030

- 23

to antisocial psychopathic behavior, because he was willing to risk further incarceration even though he knew he was being moni tored. Dr. Katz also noted that David was an inconsistent reporter. He testified that "at one point [David] says he has an addiction to opiates and at another point he says he's never used opiates except for a short time, and he has no addiction to it." And when asked why he was taking Suboxone for treatment if he really was not addicted, David responded, "for the hell of it, for the thrill of it." Dr. Katz opined these inconsistent statements stem from the fact that "[David] presents whatever information he feels is going to help him or blurts out at that moment because it's going to be something exciting or thrilling or enthralling, " and "that [David] is committed to continuing this a ntisocial lifestyle, committing additional offenses . . . and plays into very much this attention seeking/thrill seeking behavior where he's going to exploit anyone he wishes as part of that process." Dr. Katz also found that David's lack of contact w ith the Division during the time he wasn't incarcerated was significant and demonstrated the antisocial psychopathic dynamic as "the focus of the individua l is themselves, not on others, not of meeting others needs just their own needs." Dr. Katz further noted that individuals with antisocial psychopathic have a very poor history of17 A- 0030

- 23

compliance, and "even if they do comply, they don't benefit from therapy, because their goal is to again meet their own needs and to get the therapy to meet their needs there." Dr. Katz also went on to discuss David's potential e mpathy for Luke . The test results administered indicated that David unde rstands "what's expected of a parent in terms of how to be empathic. He chooses not to. And the indication is he's not going to." Dr. Katz reasoned:

Because first of all he doesn't describe empathy to wards multiple individuals. The victims of his sexual of fenses he

— on empathy towards. In fact he says demeaning things about those victims. Saying that they're

— that he just thought that they were ugly and that they were

— you know, liars and et cetera. And so there's a to tal lack of empathy even for those that he's victimized in t hese very serious ways. And towards other victims, agai n with domestic violence et cetera, lack of empathy towards anyone expressed as a willful intent not as a lack of understanding. Dr. Katz also found David's lack of a relationship with his older child to be significant and "a general parenting deficit." He explained that its "a part of [a] pattern of

— about meeting the needs of another child that he ha s and abandoning that child, in the same similar pattern as we have with [Luke]," showing the chronicity of the behavior across situations. Dr . Katz also found that David's mistrust in the system and his belief that Luke was going to be18 A- 0030

- 23

adopted no matter what stemmed from the fact that h e "at one level clearly understands he's not complied, he's not had any con tact with child. He has another child he's not seen. He's engaged in criminal be havior. He's repeatedly incarcerated in state prison, and that his case loo ks, you know, very poor." Overall, Dr. Katz testified that David's risk to L uke "in terms of specific sexual offending " is "low to moderate, " and found:

His impulsiveness, his seeking behaviors, lack of empathy, his lack of care, his lack of responsivene ss to [Luke]'s needs at any point in the history of the c ase, speaks

— well combined with the psychopathic antisocial acting out behaviors shows any child, especially a young vulnerable child, would be at ri sk for a multitude of types of neglect, abuse, et cete ra in [David]'s care or presence. And that these dynamic s can occur even under supervision - even therapeutic supervision. Dr. Katz opined that David harmed and posed a risk of harm to Luke, "in the form of abuse or neglect." And, Dr. Katz state d that therapy would not improve the situation due to David's "lack of compl iance with services" and his unwillingness to engage in means to alleviate the harm. Dr. Katz criticized Dr. Gambone's conclusions because he did not perform an y sex offender assessment on David and that he used the "Mini Mental State Ex amination," which is "very limited" and "not a comprehensive psychological per sonality test that would19 A- 0030

- 23

cover things like validity, patterns of behavior, e t cetera." 9 Dr. Katz disagreed with Dr. Gambone's recommendation that David engage in therapeutic visitation with Luke because his behavior would "likely be imp ulsive, irreverent, harmful, [and] emotionally harmful to Luke." Dr. Katz concl uded that maintaining a parental relationship between David and Luke was no t in the child's best interest. Dr. Gambone testified on behalf of David as an expe rt in forensic psychology, parental fitness, and psychology as it rel ated to sexual offenses and harm to children. Dr. Gambone described David as " a person who just does not like authority, does not like to be told what to do , does not like to be monitored." Regarding a parenting plan for Luke, Dr. Gambone te stified:

the biggest issue with [David] and the concept of parenting is he's kind of saying, you know if I get my kid back I'd like to give it a try. If I don't get my kid back I'm not sure I want to give it a try. You kno w, and again, that's the antisocial. Again that's the . .

. manipulation. Dr. Gambone added that "[David] has provided neithe r primary nor supportive care for his son [Luke] for more than four years. H e has had only minimal contact with his son during the same time."

9 Dr. Gambone attempted to administer a more comprehe nsive assessment known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven tory 2, but David refused to take it.20 A- 0030

- 23

Dr. Gambone recommended a medication review, disco ntinuing Suboxone treatment, parenting skills classes, short -term individual therapy, sex offender specific treatment, and therapeutic visitation w ith Luke. Dr. Gambone stated, "with [David] I kind of think the decision would be to let him take the challenge that he said he's up to, or in another wa y put up or shut up. Call his bluff. I think

— I think that's the only way to do it." When asked if that would put the child at risk, Dr. Gambone opined that "vis its in a visit hall at South Woods State Prison . . . would not put any child at risk." Dr. Gambone also testified, "it's recommended that [David] should not currently be considered to present an imminent risk of impulsive harm to himself, his son [Luke] or any other person. Howev er, it is also recommended that [David] should not currently be considered cap able of adequately [parenting] any child on an independent basis." Dr . Gambone recommended, "[David] be currently considered appropriate for su pervised contact with his son, [Luke], during his incarceration and subsequent rel ease contingent on document ed compliance will all court ordered services and Meg an's Law supervision." On cross-examination, Dr. Gambone conceded that Da vid had antisocial personality disorder and "a general disregard for t he rights or welfare of others."21 A- 0030

- 23

He further agreed that David was "irresponsible now ," "untrustworthy," and "unstable," but attributed these traits to his diff icult upbringing. Dr. Gambone also noted that the prognosis for treating someone like David

— who has antisocial personality disorder

— is that "it's not impossible to treat [but] usually not good, meaning that if someone's antisocial . . . it will go on." Dr. Gambone opined that, "when stable, substance fr ee, conflict free, crime free, symptom free, and stress free [David] m ay exhibit adequate executive function and learning, problem solving, c ontingency planning, and social decision making." However, Dr. Gambone indicated that it would take about three months to determine if David could succ essfully be rehabilitated, and if so, another six months for him to parent Luk e. Dr. Gambone noted he did not know Luke and never interviewed him. David did not testify. The Law Guardian did not pr esent any evidence but joined in the Division's request to terminate David 's parental rights to Luke

. III. Subsequent to the presentation of the evidence and closing arguments of counsel, the judge rendered an oral decision summar izing the matter's procedural history and making factual findings as t o each of the required elements of the best-interests- of

- the -child standard set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-22 A- 0030

- 23

15.1(a). Based on those findings, the judge determ ined the Division sustained its burden of proving by clear and convincing evide nce it was in Luke 's best interests to terminate David's parental rights. In his opinion, the judge found Markferding's testi mony "very credible," and "clear, concise, and consistent under direct an d cross-examination." He found her "recollection of facts was impressive and its accuracy was unrebutted by any evidence in the case," and deemed her "the h allmark of credibility." The judge also credited Dr. Katz's testimony noting him to be "credible" and "unrefuted in any way by the [d]efense expert's opinion, and honest assessment," and "more dire and pessimistic" than D r. Gambone. The first prong of the best interests test requires the Divis ion demonstrate that the "child's safety, health, or development ha s been or will continue to be endangered by the parental relationship." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1); see K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 352. The concern is not only w ith actual harm to the child but also the risk of harm. In re Guardianship of D .M.H., 161 N.J. 365, 383 (1999) (citing N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 616 n.14 (1986)). The focus is not on a single or isolated event, but rather "on the effect of harms arising from the parent-child relationship over time on the child's health and development." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 348.23 A- 0030

- 23

Our Court has explained a parent's withdrawal of nurtu re and care for an extended period is a harm that endangers the health of a child. D.M.H., 161 N.J. at 379 (citing K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 352-54). When c hildren "languish in foster care" without a permanent home, their parents' "fai lure to provide a permanent home" may itself constitute harm. Id. at 383 (secon d quotation citing N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. B.G.S., 291 N.J. Super. 5 82, 591-93 (App. Div. 1996)). The judge need not wait until children are "irrepar ably impaired" by parental abuse or neglect. D.M.H., 161 N.J. at 383 . "The State has a parens patriae responsibility to protect children from the probability of serious physical, emotional, or psychological harm resulting from the action or inaction of their parents." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. C.S. , 367 N.J. Super. 76, 110 (App. Div. 2004). Under prong one, the judge found Luke 's safety, health, and welfare will be endangered by a continued relationship with Davi d due to his prolonged absence from Luke's life and "[t]he almost complete absence of solicitude, protection, and nurture by [David] has endangered t he health and development of [Luke]." The judge further concluded the harm w ould continue due to David's "psychological and substance misuse." There was substa ntial credible evidence in the record to support the judge's finding under prong one.24 A- 0030

- 23

Regarding prong two, which overlaps with prong one, the judge found David has a "true desire" to reunify with Luke but emphasized "the record is clear that he is unable, at this time, to eliminate the harm now or in the foreseeable future." The judge highlighted that the expert testimony and evidence demonstrated that David was unlikely to re medy the harm that his absence caused Luke, and noted that "Dr. Gambone wo uld not downplay the current danger that [David] poses [Luke.]" The judge concluded David's problem in parenting "h as persisted for many years. And there are no indications that any chang e has taken place for [David] at this time." While Dr. Gambone postulated a cour se of treatment that would allow David to rehabilitate himself, the judge found it was unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future "especially given the factua l finding that there has been no true engagement in services." There is substant ial credible evidence in the record to support the judge's finding under prong t wo. The third prong requires evidence that "[t]he [D]iv ision has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the circumstances which led to the child's placement ou tside the home and the [judge] has considered alternatives to termination of parental rights." N.J.S.A.
30:4C -15.1(a)(3). "Reasonable efforts may include consu ltation with the parent,25 A- 0030

- 23

developing a plan for reunification, providing serv ices essential to the realization of the reunification plan, informing th e family of the child's progress, and facilitating visitation." M.M., 189 N.J. at 28 1 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). Under the first part of prong three, the judge foun d the Division made reasonable efforts to provide services to David by scheduling substance abuse and psychological evaluations, however, he failed t o maintain contact with the Division and vanished. The judge highlighted that the Division searched for David for months but could not provide services in absentia. Therefore, the judge concluded that any lack of services during th at period was the result of David's own actions. The judge observed that the D ivision did not arrange for visitation while David was incarcerated, but found visitation would not be safe at the prison, and therefore there was no prejudice to David. Under the second part of prong three, the judge fou nd that the Division had explored, without success, alternatives to term ination, and assessed numerous relatives and KLG, but all were eventually ruled out. The judge reasoned that the Division initially placed Luke wi th a relative, but that placement fell through.26 A- 0030

- 23

Finding Greta well-informed of the difference betw een KLG and adoption, the judge emphasized Greta "unequivocally " expressed her preference and commitment to adopting Luke . The judge determined that based on
Greta 's

— and Brian's

— commitment to adoption, that KLG was not in Luke 's best interests. The judge highlight ed that the "Division was able to []place [Luke] and his [half-]sister with the same unrelate d resource family that took them in during the first removal case." The judge reiterated that the Division assessed the maternal grandfather, the maternal gre at-grandmother, a paternal aunt, a maternal uncle, and the mother of David's d aughter but ruled them out. The record supports the judge's determination under prong three. Finally, the judge concluded under prong four that the termination of Luke 's parental rights would not do more harm than good . The judge found the uncontroverted testimony of both experts demonstrat ed that David was unable to safely parent Luke now, and Dr. Katz opined that David would not be able to parent in the reasonably foreseeable future. In ad dition, the judge determined that since Luke's recollection of David was vague d ue to his incarceration for the majority of the litigation, there would be litt le to no harm to Luke if David's parental rights were terminated. The judge ultimat ely concluded that Luke "is27 A- 0030

- 23

in a loving, caring pre-adoptive home," which is "t he only time Luke's needs have been met to any degree." The judge stressed that Luke has waited long enough for a permanent home, and David's "criminal, antisocial lifestyle ha s resulted in his being absent for most of [Luke's] life." The judge explained th at "[Luke] had or has a vague recollection of . . . his father" and didn't know D avid's name. The judge recounted the "physical and emotional trauma" David suffered while in a n orphanage in Russia stating, "[u]nfortunately, he's been unable to overcome that[,]" and "not engaging in any services to try." Further, the resource home is "loving and caring" based on the judge's considerat ion of the evidence, and Luke is engaging in play therapy and has an Individualiz ed Education Program for his communication impairment. A memorializing order was entered. This appeal followed.
IV. Before us, David argues the Division failed to prov e by clear and convincing evidence all four prongs of the best int erests of the child test and that Dr. Katz rendered a net opinion. We are unpersuaded.28 A- 0030

- 23

Prong One David contends that the judge erred in finding that the Division satisfied the first prong of the "best interest" test by clea r and convincing evidence. In particular, David argues because Luke was not harme d by any act that can be attributed to him , this prong of the test has not been sufficiently met to warrant termination of his parental rights. To satisfy the first prong, the D ivision must clearly and convincingly demonstrate harm "that threatens the child[ren]'s h ealth and will likely have deleterious effects on the child[ren]." K.H.O., 16 1 N.J. at 352. This harm need not be actual because "[c]ourts need not wait to ac t until a child is actually irreparably impaired by parental inattention or neg lect." D.M.H., 161 N.J. at
38 3. Rather, courts consider whether the children's safety, health, or development will be endangered in the future. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.G., 344 N.J. Super. 418, 440 (App. Div. 2001). As such, the prong may be satisfied by the mere risk of harm if supported by sufficient evidence. See D.M.H., 161 N.J. at 383; A.G., 344 N.J. Super. at 4 35- 36. Our Court has stressed harm includes the denial of "the attention and concern of a caring family" which it considers "the most precious of all resources." D.M.H., 161 N.J. at 379. "A parent's withdrawal of that solicitude,29 A- 0030

- 23

nurture, and care for an extended period of time is in itself a harm that endangers the health and development of a child." Id. at 379 , 383. Such a withdrawal is not "inadequate parenting;" rather, it is a "failur e to provide even minimal parenting." Id. at 379 (quoting A.W., 103 N.J. at 606 -07). A parent's failure to provide a "permanent, safe, and stable home" engend ers significant harm to the children. Id. at 383. In the matter under review, Judge Wright appropriat ely concluded that Luke's safety, health or development has been or wi ll continue to be endangered by a parental relationship with David. Pertinently, the judge found that "[David]'s long absence from [Luke]'s life is a cle ar cognizable harm," and specifically noted that David's "unfortunate own an tisocial behaviors" were to blame

. The judge reasoned that the "complete absence of s olicitude, protection, and nurture by [David]" is ultimately what endanger s the health and development of Luke. The record supports that dete rmination. David maintains that the judge erred because incarc eration alone is insufficient to meet the first prong of the statuto ry test. We are unpersuaded. The record clearly establishes that the j udge 's decision did not solely rely on David's incarceration, and, in fact, the judge foun d David's behavior when he was at liberty equally significant. Judge Wright no ted that "sadly, even during30 A- 0030

- 23

the short periods of young [Luke]'s life where his father . . . was at liberty, there's no evidence that [David] exercised parenting time o r visitation with [Luke]." Moreover, the judge noted that David "could have av ailed himself of the legal system to prosecute his right to visit with his son " but failed to do s o. Furthermore, the judge also appropriately found tha t the danger to Luke would persist into the future due to David's "psych ological and substance misuse presentation as discussed by both experts in this c ase." The judge credited Dr. Katz's testimony that David's psychopathic personal ity disorder and lack of responsiveness to Luke's needs put the child at ris k for a multitude of different types of neglect and abuse if he were placed in Dav id's care. The judge's decision under prong one is amply supported by the credible evidence in the record. Prong Two Regarding prong two, David argues the judge erred b y speculating about his willingness and ability to eliminate any alleged harm to Luke. The Division and Law Guardian counter that David is not only una ble but also unwilling to provide a safe, stable, and permanent home for Luke

. The second prong of the best interest determination , "in many ways, addresses considerations touched on in prong one." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam.31 A- 0030

- 23

Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 451 (2012). Evidence supporting the first prong may also support the second prong "as part of the c omprehensive basis for determining the best interests of the child[ren]." D.M.H., 161 N.J. at 379. This prong "relates to parental unfitness," K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 352, and "the inquiry centers on whether the parent is able to remove the danger facing the child. " F.M., 211 N.J. at 451. The Division can satisfy this inquiry by showing the parent or parents cannot provide a safe and stable home and that the child or children will suffer substantially from a lack of stability and permanen t placement. M.M., 189 N.J.

at 281. Because the Legislature placed "limits on th e time for a birth parent to correct conditions in anticipation of reuniting wit h the child[ren]," "the emphasis has shifted from protracted efforts for re unification with

. . . birth parent[s] to an expeditious, permanent placement to promote the child[ren]'s well-being." C.S., 367 N.J. Super. at 111 (citing N.J.S.A. 30:4C-11.1; D.M.H. , 161 N.J. at 385; K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 357-59). Here, the judge concluded the second prong was sati sfied. Although the judge found that David had a "true desire" to reuni fy with Luke, he determined the record clearly established David was "unable, a t this time, to eliminate the harm now or in a foreseeable future. " Moreover, the judge aptly found32 A- 0030

- 23

significant that David's own expert witness, Dr. Ga mbone, did not downplay the current danger that David poses to Luke, and cited Dr. Gambone's testimony that "the problem is [David]'s failure to date to e ngage with any offered services." Based upon our review of the record, the judge did not rely upon speculation but rather upon substantial credible ev idence in the record in concluding the Division met its burden under prong two. The record supports the determination that David failed to appear for c ourt-ordered substance abuse evaluations and indicated he will never attend sex offender therapy. Therefore, the judge properly found under prong two that David will not rehabilitate himself to a degree necessary to cure the harm he c aused Luk e. Under prong two, the judge also correctly found tha t David is completely unable to provide Luke "with any symbol of a home, much less any stable home," and a delay in permanency would add to the h arm, especially in light of the fact the resource parents wish to adopt. The j udge's determination under prong two was based upon substantial credible evide nce in the record. Prong Three David contends the judge erred in concluding that t he Division exercised reasonable efforts to provide services to help him to correct the circumstances33 A- 0030

- 23

that lead to placement outside the home. David als o asserts the judge failed to consider alternatives to termination of his parenta l rights, such as KLG. KLG allows a relative to become the child's legal guardian an d commit to care for the child until adulthood, without terminati ng parental rights. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494, 508 (2004). The Legislature created this arrangement because it found "that an increasing number of children who cannot safely reside with their parents are in t he care of a relative or family friend who does not wish to adopt the child or chil dren." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. L.L., 201 N.J. 210, 222 -23 (2010). Prior to July 2, 2021, KLG was considered "a more p ermanent option than foster care when adoption '[was] neither feasible n or likely.'" P.P., 180 N.J. at 512 (emphasis added) (quoting N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6(d)( 3) to (4)). As such, "when

a care giv er . . . unequivocally assert[ed] a desire to adopt ," the standard to impose a KLG was not satisfied because the party se eking a KLG arrangement would not be able to show that adoption was neither feasible nor likely. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. T.I., 423 N.J. Super. 127, 130 (App. Div. 2011). In other words, when permanency through adoption wa s available to a child, KLG could not be used as a defense to the terminati on of parental rights. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. D.H., 398 N.J. Super . 333, 341 (App. Div. 2008).34 A- 0030

- 23

On July 2, 2021, however, the Legislature amended N .J.S.A. 3B:12A6(d)(3) and removed the statutory requirement that adoption be "neither feasible nor likely," making KLG an equally available perman ency plan for children in the Division's custody. However, the Legislature d id not delete paragraph (d)(4) of the KLG statute, which requires a court to find "awarding [KLG] is in the child's best interest," N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6(d)(4), be fore it can order KLG. Thus, the amended KLG statute simply ensures a resource p arent's willingness to adopt and no longer forecloses KLG. But the amendment to N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6(d)(3) does not affect the trial court's application of th e best interests test for parental termination cases as codified under N.J.S.A. 30:4C- 15.1(a)(1) to (4). Substantial credible evidence in this record suppor ts the judge's findings that the Division thoroughly explored alternatives to termination of parental rights. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008). David's assertion that L. 2021, c. 145 ("2021 amendments") compels KLG is unsupported by the overriding purpose of child protection laws. See N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. D.C.A., 474 N.J. Sup er. 11, 27- 28 (App. Div. 2022) , aff'd, 256 N.J. 4 (2023). The children's best interests are the polestar of any termination decision. D.H., 398 N.J. Super. at 338.35 A- 0030

- 23

The third prong of the best interests test requires evidence that "the Division has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the circumstances which led to the child's placement outside the home and the [judge] has considered alternatives to term ination of parental rights." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(3). "Reasonable efforts may include consultation with the parent, developing a plan for reunification, pr oviding services essential to the realization of the reunification plan, informin g the family of the child's progress, and facilitating visitation." M.M., 189 N.J. at 281 (internal quotation marks omitted). "An evaluation of the efforts undertaken by [the Di vision] to reunite a particular family must be done on an individualized basis." D.M.H., 161 N.J. at 390. The evaluating court must also consider "the parent's active participation in the reunification effort." Ibid. In any situation, "[t]he services prov id ed to meet the child's need for permanency and the parent 's right to reunification must be 'coordinated' and must have a 'realistic potenti al' to succeed." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. L.J.D., 428 N.J. Super. 451, 488 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting N. J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. J.Y., 352 N.J. Su per. 245, 267 n.10 (App. Div. 2002)).36 A- 0030

- 23

This requires the Division to "encourage, foster an d maintain the parentchild bond, promote and assist in visitation, infor m the parent of the child's progress in foster care and inform the parent of th e appropriate measures [they] should pursue . . . to . . . strengthen their relat ionship." R.G., 217 N.J. at 557 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting D.M.H., 161 N.J. at 390). What constitutes reasonable efforts varies with the circumstances of each case. D.M.H., 161 N.J. at 390- 91. Here, the record is clear that the Division did not ignore David and

ex pended reasonable efforts to work with him. From t he beginning of the guardianship litigation, the Division implemented s upervised visitation at the prison between David and Luke, and regularly met wi th David in person and sent letters to provide status updates of his case. Contrary to David's assertions, the Division did attempt to re-schedule missed visi ts when Luke was sick. The "inexplicable five-month gap" between visits when D avid was transferred to a different prison was justifiable because the Divisi on had to evaluate the new prison setting first, and visits were reduced to on ce a month because the Division had valid concerns about the impact of a six-hour t rip on Luke. We are satisfied the judge's finding that Greta and Brian were advised about KLG, but preferred adoption, is supported by the substantial credible37 A- 0030

- 23

evidence in the record. The 2021 amendments do not make KLG a bar to termination of parental rights followed by adoption because the court must still apply the best interests factors. Moreover, a care giver must petition a court for a KLG appointment under N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-5(a), which was not done here. The record shows Greta and Brian clearly rejected K LG because t he y wanted to give Luke a permanent and stable home. The record shows that when David was at liberty and placed on missing status for failing to maintain contact with the Division, the judge aptly noted "the court can find no fault with the Division's failing to provide services during this period, as it is clearly and convincingly due to [David]'s own actions." In sum , it is clear that the judge's determination rested on Luke's best interests. Moreov er, there was no prejudice to David because of the delay because the final cli nical recommendation was that visitation was not safe. Under the second part of prong three, the judge app ropriately considered and determined that the record contained unrebutted evidence that the Division initially placed Luke with numerous relatives, but none proved to be permanent. On appeal, David contends the preamble to the 2021 ch anges to Title 30 and the KLG Act support his argument that the judge did not adequately consider KLG as an alternative and that KLG is the preferred res olution for children who38 A- 0030

- 23

cannot return to their parents, and the judge failed to con sider the importance of retaining the parent-child relationship between Luk e and his father. David also takes issue with the judge's focus on the Division' s position that Greta and Brian wish to adopt, which is a consideration he posits t o be "no longer determinative in eliminating the alternative to termination of ki nship care o r KLG." 10 In the matter under review, Markferding testified a bout her discussions with the resource parents regarding KLG. The Divis ion clearly investigated KLG alternative options, but the record demonstrate s no family members were interested or qualified. It is also undisputed that Ida is in the care of the resource parents. Thus, the judge correctly concluded no KL G opportunities existed. Prong Four We are also satisfied with the judge's finding tha t the termination of David's parental rights under prong four "will not do more harm than good," N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4), as it is supported by su bstantial credible evidence. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. K.T.D., 43 9 N.J. Super. 363, 368 (App.

10 David also inappropriately cites State v. Gomes, 25 3 N.J. 6 (2023). This reliance is inappropriate because Gomes dealt with a complete statutory overhaul whereas the KLG amendment made a discrete change. See id. at 35 (cautioning the decision was not "an invitation to disregard statutory language that has been unaltered by new laws").39 A- 0030

- 23

Div. 2015). The judge acknowledged under prong fou r, after balancing and considering the relationships between the child and the natural parent and caregivers, the child "will suffer a greater harm f rom the termination of ties with [their] relationship with the[] foster parent[]," ci ting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. I.S., 202 N.J. 145, 181 (2010) (quoting I n re Guardianship of J.N.H. , 172 N.J. 440, 478 (2002)). Here, the judge stressed that both experts testifi ed that David "did not present as being able to parent [Luke] safely now." Moreover, the judge gave great weight to Dr. Katz's testimony that David wil l not be able to safely parent "in the reasonably foreseeable future" either. The ju dge found Luke "had or has a vague recollection of his . . . father" because h e "stayed six years and [eight] months and spent [thirty-four] months of his life i n Division custody with little interaction with his father." It was well w ithin the judge's discretion to afford significant weigh t to Markferding and Dr. Katz's testimony. The Division 's proofs showed Luke is "in a loving, caring pre-adoptive home" and David i s unable to provide the necessary safe and stable home and emotional suppor t Luke needs. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. J.S., 433 N.J. Super . 60, 93 (2013) ; see also40 A- 0030

- 23

Cnty. of Middlesex v. Clearwater Vill., Inc., 163 N .J. Super. 166, 173-74 (App. Div. 1978). We are also satisfied by the judge's finding of Luke 's need for permanency and stability, and h is determination that David would not be able to prov ide either in the foreseeable future. Moreover, David did not present a viable plan to make the changes necessary to provide Luke with the loving, safe, and stable home he needs and deserves.
V. Finally, David asserts that Dr. Katz rendered a ne t opinion because he relied on data that the Division "cherry-picked and sent to him," conducted a short interview of him, did not conduct a bonding e valuation, and never spoke to Luke. Again, we disagree. Two rules of evidence frame the analysis for deter mining the admissibility of expert testimony. N.J.R.E. 702 identifies when e xpert testimony is permissible and requires the experts to be qualifie d in their respective fields. N.J.R.E. 703 addresses the foundation for expert te stimony. Expert opinions must "be grounded in facts or data derived from[:] (1) the expert's personal observations, or (2) evidence admitted at the trial , or (3) data relied upon by the expert, which is not necessarily admissible i n evidence, but which is the type of41 A- 0030

- 23

data normally relied upon by experts." Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 53 (2015) (quoting Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex (Polzo I), 196 N.J. 569, 583 (2008)). "The net opinion rule is a 'corollary of [N.J.R.E. 703] . . . which forbids the admission into evidence of an expert's conclusions t hat are not supported by factual evidence or other data. '" Id. at 53-54 (alteration in original) (quoting Polzo I, 196 N.J. at 583). Therefore, an expert is requir ed to "' give the why and wherefore' that supports the opinion, 'rather than a mere conclusion. '" Id. at 54 (quoting Borough of Saddle River v. 66 E. Allendale , L.L.C., 216 N.J. 115, 144 (2013)). The net opinion rule directs that experts "be able to identify the factual bases for their conclusions, explain their methodol ogy, and demonstrate that both the factual bases and the methodology are reli able." Id. at 55 (quoting Landrigan v. Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404, 417 (1992 )). In short, the net opinion rule is "a prohibition against speculative testimon y." Harte v. Hand, 433 N.J. Super. 457, 465 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Grzanka v . Pfeifer, 301 N.J. Super. 563, 580 (App. Div. 1997)). However, "[t]he net opinion rule is not a standard of perfection." Townsend, 221 N.J. at 54. "An expert's proposed te stimony should not be excluded merely 'because it fails to account for so me particular condition or fact42 A- 0030

- 23

which the adversary considers relevant. '" Ibid. (quoting State v. Freeman, 223 N.J. Super. 92, 116 (App. Div. 1988)). An expert's failure "'to give weight to a factor thought important by an adverse party does n ot reduce his testimony to an inadmissible net opinion if he otherwise offers sufficient reasons which logically support his opinion.'" Ibid. (quoting Ro senberg v. Tavorath, 352 N.J. Super. 385, 402 (App. Div. 2002)). Generally, the Division's proofs should include tes timony by an expert who has had an opportunity to make a "comprehensive, objecti ve, and informed evaluation of the child's relationship with the fos ter parent," N.J. Div. of Youth
& Fam. Servs. v. A.R. , 405 N.J. Super. 418, 437 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting J.C. , 129 N.J. at 19), and the court must also consider " parallel proof of the child's relationship with his or her natural parents in ass essing the existence, nature, and extent of the harm facing the child," Id. at 440 (quoting J.C., 129 N.J. at 19). However, where the termination is "not predic ated upon bonding, but rather reflect[s] [the child's] need for permanency and [t he biological parent's] inability to care for [the child] in the foreseeable future," a lack of a bonding evaluation is not fatal to the Division's case. See B.G.S., 2 91 N.J. Super. at 593

- 94. We observe that while David argues Dr. Katz render ed a net opinion, he fails to point to a single example to support his a ssertion. David also avers that43 A- 0030

- 23

Dr. Katz did not speak to Luke when his own expert, Dr. Gambone, testified that he could not speak to Luke's best interests as he d id not know the child and had not interviewed him. After David's failure to part icipate in a plethora of services offered by the Division, and the judge's sound find ing that Dr. Katz's opinions were fully supported and explained by the overwhelm ing evidence in the record, David cannot credibly argue Dr. Katz gave a net opi nion. Judge Wright did not abuse his discretion in affording great weight to D r. Katz's opinion. At bottom, we are satisfied the judge correctly det ermined the Division presented clear and convincing evidence establishin g all four prongs of the best interests of the child standard under N.J.S.A. 30:4 C-15.1(a). To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of David's argu ments, we conclude they are of insufficient merit to warrant extended discussio n in a written opinion. R. 2:11 -3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.