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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0587-24 A-0588-24
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
K.A. and J.M.,
Defendants-Appellants. ________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF R.A-M., a minor. __________________________
Submitted October 1, 2025 – Decided October 21, 2025
Before Judges Mayer and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FG-12-0049-23. Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant K.A. in A-0587-24 (Amy M. Williams, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant J.M. in A-0588-24 (Bruce P. Lee, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor R.A-M. (Meredith A. Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, defendants K.A. (mother) and J.M. (father)
appeal from an October 8, 2024 judgment of guardianship terminating their
parental rights to their daughter, R.A-M. (child or daughter), born in 2022. We
affirm for the thorough and cogent reasons stated on the record on October 8,
2024 by Judge Barbara Clarke Stolte after a seven-day trial.
The facts and evidence adduced at trial were set forth in detail in Judge
Stolte's oral decision. We summarize the facts.
Historically, mother and father suffer from substance abuse and various
psychological conditions affecting their mental health. The New Jersey
A-0587-24 2 Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) conducted an
emergency removal of the child in January 2022 based on mother's self-reporting
of her history of psychiatric issues and use of synthetic marijuana laced with
opium to the hospital where she gave birth. The hospital tested mother and child
for illicit substances and the results were negative.
The Division implemented a safety plan for mother and child. Under the
Division's safety plan, maternal grandmother agreed to supervise her daughter
and grandchild. Further, mother agreed to be evaluated for her self-reported
substance abuse issues.
Shortly after implementation of the safety plan, maternal grandmother told
the Division she was unable to adequately supervise mother. The Division
removed the child and placed her in a non-relative resource home. Mother
regularly visited the child after that removal.
Around the same time, father told the Division he had ongoing mental
health issues, a history of substance abuse, and was a registered sex offender.
The Division offered father services to address his issues. However, father
either declined the services or was discharged for non-compliance from those
programs in which he enrolled.
A-0587-24 3 In April 2022, after mother no longer lived with maternal grandmother,
the Division placed the child with maternal grandmother. Maternal grandmother
developed a strong parental relationship with the child.
Mother frequently visited her daughter when the child resided with
maternal grandmother. Mother also attempted to address her ongoing mental
health and substance abuse issues in mid-2022. The services providers reported
mother had complied with their program requirements.
Around July 2022, the Division lost contact with father. During the same
month, mother tested positive for marijuana. The Division again referred
mother for substance abuse and mental health treatment. Mother continued to
test positive for marijuana through October 2022.
The Division eventually made contact with father in November 2022.
Although father expressed an interest in being involved with his child, he took
no steps to do so.
Mother maintained regular visits with the child during this period.
However, she made little progress in the treatment programs offered through the
Division and stopped attending a particular treatment program in November
2022. The treatment program discharged her for noncompliance in December
2022.
A-0587-24 4 After a January 2023 case management conference, mother agreed to
attend various treatment programs so she could be reunified with her child.
Mother and father lived together in early 2023 but struggled financially.
Although both parents agreed to updated substance abuse evaluations, father
never attended any of the scheduled evaluations.
In March 2023, mother self-reported using fentanyl. The substance abuse
treatment program in which mother was enrolled at that time reported she
displayed strange behaviors and discharged her from the program. The
substance abuse program suggested mother focus on her mental health issues
rather than her substance abuse issues. Maternal grandmother would not
supervise mother's visits with the child due to mother's erratic behaviors.
Despite the Division's substantial efforts toward reunification, mother and
father demonstrated a recurring pattern of nonparticipation or noncompliance in
mental health and substance abuse treatment programs. Throughout the
litigation, mother and father failed to demonstrate sufficient self-improvement
to achieve permanent reunification with the child.
As a result, in May 2023, the court approved the Division's plan to
terminate parental rights rather than pursue a plan for reunification. At that
time, mother was hospitalized for ingesting psychedelic mushrooms.
A-0587-24 5 Additionally, father declined to participate with the evaluations arranged by the
Division and refused services offered by the Division.
Although mother maintained regular visits with the child during the
litigation, father's visits were rare. According to the record, father had last seen
the child in July 2023.
On behalf of the Division, Gregory Gambone, Ph.D., an expert in the field
of clinical psychology, conducted several evaluations of mother. The doctor
recommended mother comply with the Division's recommended psychiatric and
substance abuse treatment program. In his bonding evaluation of mother and
child, Dr. Gambone reported:
In the current assessment, the combination of a weak and inconsistent emotional attachment along with a lack of social, emotional, and cognitive dependence suggests that terminating the relationship between [the child] and her biological mother, [mother] may not cause short-term psychological dysfunction resulting in permanent emotional, cognitive, or social impairments. However, possible long-term consequences of a complete break with her biological mother may have a significant psychological impact on [the child]'s self- esteem, confidence, and independence in the future.
In an updated evaluation of mother in April 2024, Dr. Gambone found
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-0587-24 A-0588-24
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
K.A. and J.M.,
Defendants-Appellants. ________________________
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF R.A-M., a minor. __________________________
Submitted October 1, 2025 – Decided October 21, 2025
Before Judges Mayer and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FG-12-0049-23. Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant K.A. in A-0587-24 (Amy M. Williams, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant J.M. in A-0588-24 (Bruce P. Lee, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mary L. Harpster, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor R.A-M. (Meredith A. Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, defendants K.A. (mother) and J.M. (father)
appeal from an October 8, 2024 judgment of guardianship terminating their
parental rights to their daughter, R.A-M. (child or daughter), born in 2022. We
affirm for the thorough and cogent reasons stated on the record on October 8,
2024 by Judge Barbara Clarke Stolte after a seven-day trial.
The facts and evidence adduced at trial were set forth in detail in Judge
Stolte's oral decision. We summarize the facts.
Historically, mother and father suffer from substance abuse and various
psychological conditions affecting their mental health. The New Jersey
A-0587-24 2 Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) conducted an
emergency removal of the child in January 2022 based on mother's self-reporting
of her history of psychiatric issues and use of synthetic marijuana laced with
opium to the hospital where she gave birth. The hospital tested mother and child
for illicit substances and the results were negative.
The Division implemented a safety plan for mother and child. Under the
Division's safety plan, maternal grandmother agreed to supervise her daughter
and grandchild. Further, mother agreed to be evaluated for her self-reported
substance abuse issues.
Shortly after implementation of the safety plan, maternal grandmother told
the Division she was unable to adequately supervise mother. The Division
removed the child and placed her in a non-relative resource home. Mother
regularly visited the child after that removal.
Around the same time, father told the Division he had ongoing mental
health issues, a history of substance abuse, and was a registered sex offender.
The Division offered father services to address his issues. However, father
either declined the services or was discharged for non-compliance from those
programs in which he enrolled.
A-0587-24 3 In April 2022, after mother no longer lived with maternal grandmother,
the Division placed the child with maternal grandmother. Maternal grandmother
developed a strong parental relationship with the child.
Mother frequently visited her daughter when the child resided with
maternal grandmother. Mother also attempted to address her ongoing mental
health and substance abuse issues in mid-2022. The services providers reported
mother had complied with their program requirements.
Around July 2022, the Division lost contact with father. During the same
month, mother tested positive for marijuana. The Division again referred
mother for substance abuse and mental health treatment. Mother continued to
test positive for marijuana through October 2022.
The Division eventually made contact with father in November 2022.
Although father expressed an interest in being involved with his child, he took
no steps to do so.
Mother maintained regular visits with the child during this period.
However, she made little progress in the treatment programs offered through the
Division and stopped attending a particular treatment program in November
2022. The treatment program discharged her for noncompliance in December
2022.
A-0587-24 4 After a January 2023 case management conference, mother agreed to
attend various treatment programs so she could be reunified with her child.
Mother and father lived together in early 2023 but struggled financially.
Although both parents agreed to updated substance abuse evaluations, father
never attended any of the scheduled evaluations.
In March 2023, mother self-reported using fentanyl. The substance abuse
treatment program in which mother was enrolled at that time reported she
displayed strange behaviors and discharged her from the program. The
substance abuse program suggested mother focus on her mental health issues
rather than her substance abuse issues. Maternal grandmother would not
supervise mother's visits with the child due to mother's erratic behaviors.
Despite the Division's substantial efforts toward reunification, mother and
father demonstrated a recurring pattern of nonparticipation or noncompliance in
mental health and substance abuse treatment programs. Throughout the
litigation, mother and father failed to demonstrate sufficient self-improvement
to achieve permanent reunification with the child.
As a result, in May 2023, the court approved the Division's plan to
terminate parental rights rather than pursue a plan for reunification. At that
time, mother was hospitalized for ingesting psychedelic mushrooms.
A-0587-24 5 Additionally, father declined to participate with the evaluations arranged by the
Division and refused services offered by the Division.
Although mother maintained regular visits with the child during the
litigation, father's visits were rare. According to the record, father had last seen
the child in July 2023.
On behalf of the Division, Gregory Gambone, Ph.D., an expert in the field
of clinical psychology, conducted several evaluations of mother. The doctor
recommended mother comply with the Division's recommended psychiatric and
substance abuse treatment program. In his bonding evaluation of mother and
child, Dr. Gambone reported:
In the current assessment, the combination of a weak and inconsistent emotional attachment along with a lack of social, emotional, and cognitive dependence suggests that terminating the relationship between [the child] and her biological mother, [mother] may not cause short-term psychological dysfunction resulting in permanent emotional, cognitive, or social impairments. However, possible long-term consequences of a complete break with her biological mother may have a significant psychological impact on [the child]'s self- esteem, confidence, and independence in the future.
In an updated evaluation of mother in April 2024, Dr. Gambone found
mother's bond with her child "ambivalent." He concluded mother provided an
"inconsistent state of emotional security" for the child. Based on his findings,
A-0587-24 6 Dr. Gambone recommended the child be placed in a more stable and nurturing
environment.
In his bonding evaluation of maternal grandmother and the child, Dr.
Gambone found maternal grandmother to be "the optimal permanent custodian"
for the child. He explained maternal grandmother had a strong, positive
emotional attachment to the child. He further concluded maternal grandmother
would provide a "consistent state of emotional security" for the child. Based on
his evaluation, Dr. Gambone recommended the child be adopted by maternal
grandmother.
At trial, Judge Stolte heard testimony from Division caseworkers who
described their interactions with mother and father throughout the legal
proceeding. The Division's caseworkers also testified regarding the various
services the Division offered mother and father and their inability to engage in
or complete many of the offered programs.
Judge Stolte also heard testimony from the Division's expert witness, Dr.
Gambone, who reported his findings and recommendations based on his
evaluations. Dr. Gambone's testimony was consistent with his report to the
extent he found maternal grandmother to be the "optimal permanent custodian."
He further explained separation of the child from maternal grandmother might
A-0587-24 7 cause the child to suffer significant psychological and cognitive dysfunction.
According to Dr. Gambone, mother had a weak and inconsistent emotional
attachment to the child and lacked any social, emotional, and cognitive
understanding of the child's needs. Despite his inability to evaluate father, Dr.
Gambone noted father had no attachment to the child and had almost no contact
with her. Based on his findings, Dr. Gambone concluded that termination of
parental rights would not do more harm than good.
Before the start of the trial, the Division discussed adoption vers us
Kinship Legal Guardian (KLG) with maternal grandmother. At trial, maternal
grandmother unequivocally testified she wanted to adopt the child. Maternal
grandmother explained KLG would permit mother and father to attempt to
regain custody. Maternal grandmother expressed her belief that such a situation
would not be in the child's best interests. However, maternal grandmother told
Judge Stolte that she intended to maintain contact between mother and child,
including allowing mother to visit with the child.
A-0587-24 8 Father did not attend the trial because he feared he would be arrested.
Mother appeared on some of the trial days but did not testify. 1 Neither parent
presented any expert testimony.
After hearing the unrefuted testimony and reviewing the documents
admitted into evidence, Judge Stolte, applying the best interests of the child test
under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), determined the Division clearly and convincingly
met its burden of proof supporting termination of parental rights.
The judge found each of the testifying witnesses credible. She concluded
the parents' mental health and substance abuse issues, coupled with their
nonparticipation or noncompliance with treatment programs, resulted in harm to
the child. Based on the parents' failure to address their issues, the judge found
mother and father endangered the child's safety, health, and welfare. She further
determined mother and father were unable or unwilling to eliminate the harm to
the child attributable to their untreated mental health and substance abuse issues.
Additionally, Judge Stolte concluded the Division made reasonable efforts
to refer mother and father to the appropriate treatment programs and services
and arranged for visits with the child. When mother and father agreed to
1 Mother was admitted to an inpatient mental health program during the trial. As a result, mother's appearance at trial on June 11 and 13 was waived. A-0587-24 9 participate in the Division's programs and services, the judge noted mother and
father were unsuccessful in completing the offered programs and services.
Regarding alternatives to termination of parental rights, Judge Stolte
found the Division fully informed maternal grandmother of the options
regarding the child, including KLG. The judge found maternal grandmother
understood the difference between adoption and KLG, and maternal
grandmother expressed a desire to provide a stable life for the child through
adoption.
Judge Stolte, relying on Dr. Gambone's testimony, found termination of
parental rights would not do more harm than good. As Dr. Gambone explained,
mother lacked an understanding of the child's physical, emotional, intellectual,
and social needs. Because father did not participate in the scheduled evaluations
with Dr. Gambone, Judge Stolte found there was no evidence that father could
nurture and care for the child. Additionally, the judge explained any possible
issues with termination of parental rights could be addressed if the child
remained with maternal grandmother and received counseling.
On appeal, mother and father argue the judge erred in finding the Division
satisfied all four prongs of the best interests of the child test. Additionally,
father argues the judge improperly relied on his status as a sex offender in
A-0587-24 10 terminating his parental rights. Further, because he claims to be an unreliable
historian, father asserts the judge should not have considered his self-reported
drug use and mental health issues in terminating his parental rights. Father also
contends the judge's reliance on maternal grandmother's reasons in support of
adoption rather than KLG were insufficient for rejecting KLG as an alternative
to termination. We reject these arguments.
Our scope of review from an order terminating parental rights is limited.
N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007). We accord
substantial deference to a trial judge's opportunity to observe witnesses firsthand
and evaluate their credibility. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. R.G., 217
N.J. 527, 552 (2014). "Our general deference on appeal is also informed by the
Family Part judge's 'feel of the case,'" N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v.
D.H., 469 N.J. Super. 107, 116 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth &
Fam. Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008)), and by the Family Part's "special
expertise in matters related to the family." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v.
F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012). Accordingly, we will uphold a trial judge's
factual findings "if they are grounded in substantial and credible evidence in the
record." N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. D.C.A., 256 N.J. 4, 19 (2023).
A-0587-24 11 We will reverse a Family Part judge's decision on appeal only if the judge's
findings were "so wholly unsupportable as to result in a denial of justice." N.J.
Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. P.P., 180 N.J. 494, 511 (2004) (quoting In re
Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440, 472 (2002)); see also N.J. Div. of Child
Prot. & Permanency v. D.A., 477 N.J. Super. 63, 80 (App. Div. 2023). We
review the trial judge's legal conclusions de novo. See R.G., 217 N.J. at 552;
see also D.C.A., 256 N.J. at 19 (according no deference to the trial court's
interpretation of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)).
"Children have their own rights, including the right to a permanent, safe
and stable placement." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. C.S., 367 N.J. Super.
76, 111 (App. Div. 2004). Our courts acknowledge "the need for permanency
of placements by placing limits on the time for a birth parent to correct
conditions in anticipation of reuniting with the child." Ibid. At times, a parent's
interest must yield to the State's obligation to protect children from harm. See
N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382, 397 (2009).
When terminating parental rights, a Family Part judge must focus on the
"best interests of the child standard" and determine whether the Division
satisfied all four prongs under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) by clear and convincing
A-0587-24 12 evidence. In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347-48 (1999); D.H.,
469 N.J. Super. at 114-15.
Under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), the Division must 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 [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 court has considered alternatives to termination of parental rights; and
(4) Termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good.
Judge Stolte correctly summarized the law and properly applied her
factual findings in accordance with the case law. See N.J. Div. of Child Prot. &
Permanency v. D.C.A., 474 N.J. Super. 11, 29-30 (App. Div. 2022), aff'd, 256
N.J. 4 (2023).
"In a termination of parental rights trial, the evidence often takes the form
of expert opinion testimony by psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental
health professionals." N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. R.L.M., 236
A-0587-24 13 N.J. 123, 146 (2018). Judge Stolte relied on Dr. Gambone's unrebutted expert
testimony and opinions which were based on his evaluations. Additionally,
Judge Stolte found other evidence and testimony presented at trial supported Dr.
Gambone's opinions.
After carefully reviewing the arguments presented by mother and father,
considering the record, and applying the foregoing legal principles, we are
satisfied there is no basis to disturb Judge Stolte's well-reasoned decision
terminating parental rights. There is nothing in the record supporting the
arguments raised by mother and father that the Division failed to present clear
and convincing evidence in support of termination under each prong of the
statutory best interests of the child test. In fact, mother and father presented no
evidence or testimony at trial to refute the Division's testimony and evidence.
Nor do we discern any support in the record for father's argument that the
judge impermissibly considered his status as a sex offender in terminating his
parental rights. Statements against one's penal interest, as made by father here,
are those that tend to "subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability" and
consequently are "deemed inherently trustworthy and reliable" because "by
human nature, individuals will neither assert, concede, nor admit to facts that
would affect them unfavorably." State v. White, 158 N.J. 230, 238 (1999)
A-0587-24 14 (citing N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25)). 2 Father's statements against his own personal and
penal interests were inherently reliable under the circumstances. Thus, Judge
Stolte correctly considered those statements, in part, in deciding to terminate
father's parental rights. More importantly, father's statements were not the sole
basis for the judge's decision to terminate his parental rights.
We also reject father's contention that the judge improperly relied on his
absence at trial to terminate his parental rights. Although Judge Stolte noted
father's absence from the proceedings, there is no evidence in the record that she
relied on such information or drew any adverse inference from that information
in rendering her decision.
Judge Stolte painstakingly detailed her reasons in support of the Division's
satisfaction of all four prongs under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). We need not repeat
the judge's comprehensive findings, which are amply supported by the record .
Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied Judge Stolte thoroughly and
properly analyzed each prong under the best interests of the child test, N.J.S.A.
30:4C-15.1(a), and made sufficient findings of fact based on the clear and
convincing evidence presented at trial.
2 The statement against interest exception was relocated to N.J.R.E. 804(b)(3). A-0587-24 15 To the extent we have not addressed any of defendants' remaining
arguments, we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R, 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0587-24 16