The opinion
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3545-23
NEW JERSEY DIVISION
OF CHILD PROTECTION
AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
S.L.P.,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
B.P.,
Defendant.
________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE
GUARDIANSHIP OF M.P.,
a minor.
________________________
Submitted January 15, 2025 – Decided January 28, 2025
Before Judges Mayer and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County,
Docket No. FG-03-0011-24.
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Mark E. Kleiman, Designated Counsel, on
the briefs).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Lakshmi R. Barot, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian,
attorney for minor (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel; Melissa R. Vance,
Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant S.L.P. (Mother) appeals from the June 26, 2024 judgment of
the Family Part terminating her parental rights to her daughter M.P.1 We affirm.
I.
M.P. was born in 2020 to Mother and defendant B.P. (Father). Plaintiff
Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP or Division) became
involved with the family soon after M.P.'s birth when she tested positive for
1
We use initials to protect the privacy of records relating to these proceedings.
R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
A-3545-23
2
substances related to Mother's Methadone treatment and prescribed medications.
DCPP closed that case after determining M.P. did not have unauthorized
substances in her system. At that time, M.P. was in Mother's custody and both
were living at the home of S.P. (Grandmother) and J.P. (Grandfather), M.P.'s
maternal grandparents. Father was no longer living with the maternal
grandparents because he damaged Grandmother's car while driving under the
influence
In September 2021, the Division received a referral that Mother and M.P.
were residing with Father in a homeless shelter for men. Mother stated that she
and the child were residing with the maternal grandparents. The Division closed
the case.
In June 2022, the Division received a referral from the State Police that
Mother and Father were using methamphetamines and there was domestic
violence in their home. Mother tested positive for illegal substances and Father,
who had fresh needle marks, refused to provide a urine sample.
In September 2022, Mother met with a domestic violence liaison
regarding her relationship with Father. A month later, DCPP received a referral
related to allegations of Mother's substance abuse. Those allegations, and
Mother's and Father's refusals to submit urine screens, led to DCPP's
A-3545-23
3
implementation of a Safety Protection Plan (SPP) for M.P. The plan required
Mother and Father to be supervised by the maternal grandparents whenever in
the presence of M.P.
On October 17, 2022, the Division filed a complaint in the Family Part
seeking care and supervision of M.P. On November 1, 2022, the trial court
granted DCPP care and supervision of M.P. The court ordered Mother and
Father to undergo substance abuse and psychological evaluations, as well as
drug tests. Father tested positive for benzodiazepines, amphetamines, and
buprenorphine that day.
On November 9, 2022, DCPP received notice that Mother may be
spending time with M.P. while unsupervised, in violation of the SPP. A DCPP
caseworker responded to the maternal grandparents' home, where M.P. and
Mother were residing at the time, and found Mother unsupervised with M.P.
While at the home, a caseworker observed pill bottles on the floor within reach
of M.P. Grandmother also showed the caseworker baggies containing a white
substance and marijuana, as well as a bottle of urine. The Division learned that
two-year-old M.P., who was naked and without a diaper, had not been seen by
a physician since she was four months old.
A-3545-23
4
Grandmother stated she no longer was willing to supervise Mother when
she was with M.P. That day, DCPP effectuated an emergency Dodd removal of
M.P.2
On November 14, 2022, the trial court granted DCPP custody of M.P. The
child was placed in a non-relative home due to allegations by Mother that
Grandmother was an alcoholic, which Mother later admitted to fabricating. M.P.
was thereafter placed with the maternal grandparents as her resource parents
where she remained through trial. The Division offered Mother regular
supervised visitation with the child at its office.
Grandmother and Grandfather expressed, after discussing other options,
including kinship legal guardianship (KLG), with a DCPP representative, that
they preferred to adopt M.P. over KLG. The Division considered other relatives
identified by Mother as potential resource parents for M.P. None were found to
be willing and able to care for the child.
In the following months, Mother was minimally compliant with court-
ordered urine and hair follicle drug tests, and on one occasion was suspected of
tampering with or diluting her urine sample. When she did submit to testing,
2
A Dodd removal is an emergency removal of a child from a parent's custody
without a court order pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.82, known as the Dodd
Act. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17, 26 n.11 (2011).
A-3545-23
5
Mother was frequently found to have ingested controlled substances. A hair
follicle test in November 2022 tested positive for Fentanyl and
methamphetamines. In October 2023, Mother tested positive for Fentanyl,
amphetamines, methamphetamines, and cocaine. Mother's substance abuse
evaluation recommended treatment with Solstice Counseling and Wellness
Center, which began on January 31, 2023. She was discharged on March 6,
2023, after missing two full weeks of treatment and failing to provide urine tests.
Mother thereafter intermittently sought drug treatment with the help of
DCPP, which connected her with Burlington Comprehensive Counseling.
However, she continuously missed appointments. Mother also attended
inpatient drug treatment at Maryville Integrated Care, but she left before
completing the program. She also attended inpatient drug treatment at Pyramid
Healthcare in 2023, but was discharged for inappropriate physical contact with
another patient. While at Pyramid, Mother admitted to daily heroin use.
Mother often arrived late or did not attend DCPP-facilitated visitation
with M.P. She would "go missing for weeks" and attended no scheduled visits
with M.P. at DCPP's office between July 28, 2023, and December 19, 2023.
When Mother attended visits, she showed concerning behavior, including
nodding off, smelling of substances and cigarettes, and having no food. In
A-3545-23
6
March 2023, M.P. started vomiting and became lethargic during a visit, raising
concerns that she had ingested a substance. Tests established the child had
ibuprofen and aspirin in her system, as did Mother.
DCPP referred Mother to Ascenda Parent Support Services, but she was
discharged in March 2023 after missing multiple appointments. The Division
also referred Mother to Oaks Integrated Care for parenting services, but she was
ultimately discharged and barred from the premises.
A December 2000 psychological evaluation recommended Mother receive
cognitive behavioral therapy. Although the Division arranged for the therapy ,
Mother failed to attend. Mother received some treatment for opiate use disorder,
anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder.
Mother additionally did not heed recommendations from her domestic
violence liaison, and repeatedly declined DCPP's offers to refer her to domestic
violence housing.
In late 2023 and early 2024, Mother missed or arrived late to visits with
M.P., missed appointments for DCPP-referred parenting services, and tested
positive for illicit substances. She also submitted multiple adulterated urine
samples that were unable to be tested.
A-3545-23
7
In December 2023, DCPP filed a complaint in the Family Part seeking
termination of Mother and Father's parental rights and guardianship of M.P. The
court appointed a Law Guardian to represent M.P.
The court held a five-day trial. DCPP called as witnesses its caseworkers,
as well as an expert in clinical and forensic psychology. The Law Guardian also
called an expert in clinical and forensic psychology. Mother did not attend the
trial.3
The caseworkers testified to their reports and contacts with Mother, as
well as her behavior. They also testified about their contacts with the maternal
grandparents and their discussions regarding KLG and adoption.
The Division's expert emphasized M.P.'s need for permanency and
"predictability in her lifestyle and in her world." He evaluated Mother, and
conducted a bonding evaluation between her and M.P., as well as between M.P.
and her resource parents. Based on his psychological evaluation of Mother, the
expert opined she did not have the ability to provide M.P. with the necessary
and crucial elements of a positive and significant bond between parent and child.
The expert testified that Mother has limited knowledge of parenting and was
3
Father also did not appear at trial and did not appeal the judgment terminating
his parental rights to M.P.
A-3545-23
8
unable to identify significant milestones in a child's life. He found M.P. had an
"ambivalent attachment" to Mother, which "is not a significant positive bond."
The expert could not support Mother as an independent caretaker of M.P. in the
foreseeable future.
The Division's expert described the bond between M.P. and Grandmother
as a "significant and positive psychological attachment and bond," with a
"significant risk" of M.P. "suffering severe and enduring harm" if the attachment
was permanently ended.
The Law Guardian's expert testified that during her evaluations, Mother
was dismissive and denied substance abuse issues. The expert stated that Mother
told her she did not plan on leaving Father in the foreseeable future, despite
domestic violence and mental, physical, emotional, verbal, and psychological
abuse. The expert opined that, given Mother's behavior, and the possibility that
she will "start and stop[]" any positive changes she may make to her behavior
as she has done in the past, prognosis for her ability to parent M.P. in the
foreseeable future is "poor."
The Law Guardian's expert testified that delaying permanency for M.P.
would be "contraindicated to her best interest as it relates to her psychological
and emotional well[-]being," and there would be no harm to M.P. if Mother’s
A-3545-23
9
parental rights were terminated "[a]s long as she was safely cared for by persons
who she deems as her psychological parents." The expert opined that M.P. and
her maternal grandparents enjoy a "secure" bond.
The Law Guardian's expert also testified that during her interview with
the maternal grandparents, they consistently expressed their intention to adopt
M.P. over KLG, with Grandmother being particularly clear on that subject.
Grandmother expressed concerns for M.P.'s safety if Mother were to have
unsupervised access to the child. The expert also testified that the maternal
grandparents intended to permit Mother to maintain a relationship with M.P.,
provided their visits are supervised and outside of their home because Mother
had stolen from the maternal grandparents in the past.
On June 26, 2024, Judge Mary Ann O'Brien issued a comprehensive oral
opinion in which she concluded that DCPP had satisfied each of the four prongs
set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing evidence, and that
termination of Mother's parental rights to M.P. was warranted. A June 26, 2024
judgment memorialized Judge O'Brien's decision.
This appeal followed. Mother argues the trial court erred when it found
DCPP: (1) satisfied prong three of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) because the Division
did not follow the recommendation of its expert that Mother undergo a
A-3545-23
10
psychiatric evaluation by a board-certified psychiatrist or other qualified
provider to determine whether she should be offered psychotropic medications;
(2) adequately considered KLG as a viable alternative to termination of Mother's
parental rights; and (3) satisfied prong four of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) because
it did not give Mother additional time to address the issues that resulted in the
child's removal. The Law Guardian supports the judgment.
II.
Our scope of review on appeal from an order terminating parental rights
is limited. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007).
We will uphold a trial judge's factfindings if they are "supported by adequate,
substantial, and credible evidence." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G.,
217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). "We accord deference to factfindings of the family
court because it has the superior ability to gauge the credibility of the witnesses
who testify before it and because it possesses special expertise in matters related
to the family." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448
(2012); see Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). "Only when the trial
court's conclusions are so 'clearly mistaken' or 'wide of the mark' should an
appellate court intervene and make its own findings to ensure that there is not a
denial of justice." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104
A-3545-23
11
(2008) (quoting G.L., 191 N.J. at 605). We also accord deference to the judge's
credibility determinations "based upon his or her opportunity to see and hear the
witnesses." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.L., 388 N.J. Super. 81, 88
(App. Div. 2006). No deference is given to the court's "interpretation of the
law" which is reviewed de novo. D.W. v. R.W., 212 N.J. 232, 245-46 (2012).
When terminating parental rights, the court focuses on the "best interests
of the child standard" and may grant a petition when the four prongs set forth in
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) are established by clear and convincing evidence. In re
Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347-48 (1999). "The four criteria
enumerated in the best interests standard are not discrete and separate; they
relate to and overlap with one another to provide a comprehensive standard that
identifies a child's best interests." Id. at 348.
N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) requires the Division to prove:
(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
the delay of permanent placement will add to the
harm;
(3) The division has made reasonable efforts to
provide services to help the parent correct the
A-3545-23
12
circumstances which led to the child's placement
outside the home and the court has considered
alternatives to termination of parental rights; and
(4) Termination of parental rights will not do more
harm than good.
After carefully reviewing Mother's arguments in light of the record and
applicable legal principles, we are convinced there is no basis to disturb Judge
O'Brien's well-reasoned decision that DCPP established by clear and convincing
evidence that termination of Mother's parental rights to M.P. was warranted.
We see no support in the record for Mother's argument that the Division
failed to satisfy prong three of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). Mother argues a
psychiatric evaluation may have revealed the pathologies that led to M.P.'s
removal from her care and prevent reunification, and psychotropic medication
may have effectively addressed those pathologies. The Division's expert
testified that he recommended a psychological evaluation for Mother's "personal
benefit" and that his recommendation was "not offered with the intent of trying
to effectuate reunification of this child with this birth mother," given Mother's
poor prognosis for change.
Nor do we find support in the record for Mother's argument regarding
KLG. There is no statutory bar to granting KLG instead of adoption where the
relative caregiver wants to adopt and DCPP otherwise proves termination of
A-3545-23
13
parental rights to be in the child's best interests. The record supports the trial
court's finding that the maternal grandparents were informed KLG was an option
and elected to adopt M.P. in light of the significant concerns raised by Mother's
interaction with the child and her history of negative interactions with her
parents, including theft of their property and a false accusation that caused them
to be temporarily separated from M.P.
We also are not persuaded DCPP was compelled to give Mother additional
time to address the numerous issues that caused it to remove M.P. from her care.
We therefore affirm the June 26, 2024 judgment for the reasons stated in
Judge O'Brien's comprehensive oral opinion. Mother's arguments are without
sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3545-23
14