Dcpp v. S.W., in the Matter of the Guardianship of N.D.W.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: May 2, 2025
• Docket: A-3549-22
• Status: Unpublished

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3549-22

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

S.W.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER(S) OF N.D.W., A.J.W., and K.H., WHOMSOEVER HE MAY BE,

Defendant.

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF N.D.W., K.H., and A.J.W., minors.

Submitted March 19, 2025 – Decided May 2, 2025

Before Judges Currier, Marczyk, and Paganelli. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, Docket No. FG-16-0044-22.

Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Christine Olexa Saginor, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Michelle McBrian, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minors N.D.W. and K.H. (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; David B. Valentin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Jennifer Nicole Sellitti, Public Defender, Law Guardian, attorney for minor A.J.W. (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant S.W. (Sara) appeals from a judgment terminating her parental

rights to her son K.H. (Kaleb) and daughters N.D.W. (Nora) and A.J.W. (Amy). 1

She asserts the trial court erred in finding the Division of Child Protection and

Permanency (the Division) satisfied all four prongs of the best interests of the

1 To protect individuals' privacy, we use initials and pseudonyms. R. 1:38- 3(d)(12). A-3549-22 2 child test set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1. Specifically, Sara argues that the

trial court erred in concluding that the children had been harmed by their

relationship with her and that she was unwilling or unable to remediate

perceived issues with her parenting, that the Division did not demonstrate it

made reasonable efforts to provide her with services or consider alternatives to

termination, and that the trial court gave undue weight to expert testimony

presented by the Division as to the best interests of the children.

After a careful review of the record in light of the applicable principles of

law, we are satisfied the court's decision to terminate Sara's parental rights is

supported by substantial and credible evidence. We affirm.

Sara has four children: R.W. (Ryan), born in September 2002, who is not

a subject of this litigation 2; Kaleb, born in August 2007; Nora, born in August

2013; and Amy, born in May 2018. None of the children's fathers have been

identified.

Pre-Removal Contacts with the Division

In 2010, when Ryan was eight and Kaleb was two, the Division received

a referral alleging that Kaleb was unattended on a fire escape at the family's

apartment. Sara admitted to falling asleep and not waking until police arrived

2 Ryan has severe autism. A-3549-22 3 at her door. The Division closed the case without a finding of abuse or neglect

after advising Sara to put appropriate locks on all the doors and windows of the

home.

In 2012, the Division received several neglect allegations against Sara

after she was evicted from her home due to non-payment of rent. The director

of the shelter where Sara had been staying reported that Sara left her children

with other residents and stayed out late at night without notifying staff. Sara

refused the Division's offer of services. On another occasion, Sara failed to meet

Ryan's bus after school to take him home. She explained that she asked another

resident of the shelter to pick Ryan up and babysit him, but the shelter advised

the Division that Sara did not follow its protocol for this arrangement.

Later that year, Sara and the boys moved into an apartment with the help

of a temporary rental assistance grant. Shortly thereafter, the local police

informed the Division that Ryan was found outside wearing only a coat and

underwear and trying to board a bus. Kaleb reported that Sara had left him and

Ryan alone the previous night.

Sara said she went to "hang out" in New York City and left the boys with

a babysitter she knew only as "Simone," but she did not know this person's

contact information. Sara told the Division she had no family to care for her

A-3549-22 4 sons. She also admitted that she had left the boys with other babysitters she

could not name. Sara was substantiated for neglect, and Ryan and Kaleb were

placed in foster care.

In January 2013, Sara tested positive for cocaine, and she admitted to

using illegal substances. After she completed court-ordered services through

the Division, the family was reunified in January 2014.

During the period between 2014 and 2016, the Division received referrals

for the family when Sara called 9-1-1 to report an "evil presence" in her home

that prevented her from sleeping, when there was a lack of gas service to the

home due to Sara failing to pay the bill and refusing the Division's assistance,

and when Sara allowed Kaleb and Ryan to go fishing on their own and a fishing

hook became lodged in Ryan's leg. Throughout this time, Sara often failed to

communicate with the Division and did not provide case workers access to her

In April 2014, Kaleb reported that Sara had punched him in the stomach

and struck him on previous occasions. However, because the child had no

visible bruises, the Division determined the allegation was unfounded. In

August, the Division did substantiate Sara for neglect related to one-year-old

Nora. The baby had suffered blistering and second-degree burns to her lower

A-3549-22 5 legs after being left in hot water in the sink by her mother. Sara claimed she

had left Nora under seven-year-old Kaleb's supervision, and that the boy had

turned the hot water on because he was "always trying to provoke his sister ."

Sara's landlord reported to the Division that the boys often ran around

unattended.

After the 2014 burning incident, the Division instituted in-home

Emergency Child Aid Program services to ensure the children's safety. It also

referred Sara for a psychological assessment and provided in-home parenting

skills training.

In May 2015, the Division received an allegation that Nora was almost hit

by a car while outside unsupervised with Kaleb. Kaleb told the Division worker

that after Sara left him and his sister alone at a park while she went for a jog ,

Nora wandered toward a parking lot, where she was almost struck by a car.

In February 2016, Sara was evicted from the apartment because she was

$9,000 in arrears on her rent. The family moved in with a friend of Sara's but

later relocated to a shelter. In August, the shelter staff saw Sara put Kaleb in a

chokehold and kick him in the stomach. Kaleb reported to the Division that his

mother hit him when he didn't "watch his brother and sister." A Division

A-3549-22 6 investigator observed that the family's apartment at the shelter had "trash all

over the floor."

Thereafter, the Division paid for Sara and the children to stay at several

hotels. The Division also provided Sara with information about therapy for

Kaleb and preschool assistance for Nora, and apartment listings to help her find

housing. Sara was unemployed but received government assistance at that time.

She was not responsive to the Division's communications. The Division later

assisted the family to move into a shelter.

During the family's stay at the shelter, staff complained that Sara stayed

in bed "all the time" and did not watch her children. A counselor made attempts

to work with Sara to improve her time management skills but they were

unsuccessful. The Division also transported Sara to a job fair, advised her of a

local business that was hiring, helped her prepare for possible job interviews,

and arranged babysitting for the children. Sara did not follow up with any of

the offered assistance.

In May 2017, the Division helped the family move to a YMCA shelter,

where they remained for a month. The Division continued attempting to assist

Sara with "obtaining stable housing and devising a budget." The Division

advised Sara that if, after thirty more days, she could not find a home, it would

A-3549-22 7 no longer pay for her housing and the children would be at risk for removal.

YMCA staff reported that Sara never left the shelter during the day to apply for

jobs or attend interviews.

In June 2017, Sara attended a psychological evaluation with Robert

Kanen, Psy.D. Sara's test scores revealed that her functioning IQ was sixty-

eight, in the intellectually deficient to borderline range of cognitive ability. Dr.

Kanen opined that her cognitive limitations impacted her ability to supervise

and care for her children. He also found that Sara had "severe" personality

problems, including extreme self-centeredness, attention-seeking behavior, and

minimal awareness of her own unreliability. Dr. Kanen concluded that Sara

could not provide her children with "a permanent, safe and secure home now or

in the foreseeable future."

The family moved into the home of Sara's uncle, E.W., in June 2017. On

July 18, a Division investigator spoke with E.W.'s wife, J.W., who reported that

Sara gave the children no structure or discipline and did not seem to understand

how to do so. J.W. said Sara stayed in the attic or basement of the house most

days, did not attend to her children, and spent money on unnecessary items .

Kaleb confirmed that his mother did not supervise him or his siblings. Sara said

she did look after them, when J.W. was not around.

A-3549-22 8 On August 17, E.W. and J.W. demanded that Sara and the children leave

their home. J.W. reported that Sara had stolen money from her, and that when

J.W. confronted her, Sara called the police and claimed J.W. stole her cell phone.

Sara had made no effort to obtain employment or save money while staying with

E.W.'s family.

The Division executed an emergency removal of all three children that

day. Nora was placed with resource parent D.J. (Doreen), and Kaleb was placed

into a treatment home because he needed special care due to behavioral issues.

Post-Removal

In October 2017, Sara told the Division she was looking for a new job.

She refused to participate in therapy or attend a new psychological evaluation .

She told the Division that "rushing will not help her get her children back." Sara

eventually provided the Division with the address of a friend with whom she

was residing part-time, but she said the children could not join her there.

Between August 2017 and May 2018, Sara only sporadically attended

weekly visitation with her children, often failing to confirm she would attend or

simply not showing up. Ultimately, she visited with the children fewer than a

dozen times during this period, often claiming she was "busy."

A-3549-22 9 On May 17, 2018, Sara was admitted to the hospital. She was eight

months pregnant but denied she knew this before going to the hospital despite

noticing her belly "swelling up" and feeling "movement" inside. On May 25,

Sara told the Division that her aunt, M.W. (Mary), would allow her and the

children to reside in her home in Canada. When the Division contacted Mary,

she said she could only care for Nora.

Amy was born in May 2018. Sara refused to identify the baby's father.

Although Sara claimed she was living with an uncle at the time, the uncle denied

it and said he was not financially supporting his niece. Sara remained

unemployed. On June 4, 2018, the Division was granted custody of Amy, who

was placed with resource mother J.B. (Jaime).

Also in June 2018, Sara attended an updated psychological evaluation

with Dr. Kanen, who again reported that Sara had a low level of cognitive ability

and was not conscious of her own limitations. He noted she was unable to

independently support herself and had no plan to provide for her children . Dr.

Kanen said Sara was likely unable to adequately recognize dangers to her

children, was "extremely self-centered," and tended not to "learn[] . . . from her

mistakes." He concluded that Sara's issues were unlikely to change even with

services.

A-3549-22 10 Sara was also evaluated by a psychiatrist, Michael Gentile, M.D., during

which she reported that she was employed part-time at a hookah café. Dr.

Gentile found that Sara was intellectually disabled and unable to function as a

parent. The Division's notes indicate Sara was homeless and looking for

employment. Thereafter, Sara missed three scheduled and rescheduled family

team meetings with the Division.

During a visit with Amy, Sara picked up the two-month-old baby and

dangled her by her hands. She then picked the baby up by her feet and pulled

on her torso. Despite Amy screaming and crying, and a Division worker's

attempt to intervene, Sara said this was something people do to "stretch a child's

body out and get rid of creases in the child's limbs faster." Sara also watered

down Amy's formula, criticized Kaleb's weight, and yelled at Nora when she

referred to her resource parent as "grandma."

In August 2018, Kaleb told the Division case worker that he did not want

to be reunified with his mother because he thought he would only be removed

again, and he did not want to be responsible for caring for his siblings anymore.

He said Sara was "crazy" and "[did] not care" about the children, and he felt

"safe and at peace" with his resource family.

A-3549-22 11 In September, Sara moved in with another friend. She reported that her

life was "very complicated right now" and that she "need[ed] more time" before

her children could live with her again. She was still unemployed. Sara was

often late for visits with the children. Kaleb complained that during visits, his

mother either didn't pay attention to him or called him "fat."

In the next few months, Sara stopped going to a parenting program and

continued to be late for or didn't confirm visits with the children. In December

2018, Sara told the Division she needed "a break from visitation" so she could

look for work and complained that visits took up too much of her time. The

Division consolidated her two visits per week into one longer visit.

The Division ruled out a possible relative placement after Sarah refused

to cooperate. Sara said she did not want to provide the Division with the names

of any other relatives because she did not want to burden them. She also refused

to give the Division her address. Sara continued to miss visits with the children

and was significantly late for others. She remained unemployed.

In February 2019, Doreen expressed interest in adopting Nora.

Thereafter, the trial court approved the Division's plan of termination of Sara's

parental rights followed by adoption, noting that she had failed to complete

A-3549-22 12 services, was sporadic with visitation, and had no stable home. The Division

initiated its guardianship litigation.

During this time, Sara was living in the Bronx. The Division continued

to transport her to visits with the children and to attend therapy sessions.

However, Sara often kept drivers waiting at her father's home because she was

not ready to leave when they arrived.

In March, Sara underwent a psychological evaluation with Mona Krishan,

Ph.D. Dr. Krishan found that Sara had "compromised cognitive abilities with

borderline intellectual ability," and "demonstrated an inability to acknowledge

her limitations and problems or to address them with responsibility." Dr.

Krishan concluded that these factors would interfere with Sara's ability to care

for her children without ongoing support and monitoring.

The Division continued trying to find relative placements for the children

to no avail. At one point, Mary indicated that she could care for Nora and Amy,

but not Kaleb. Sara continued living in her father's one-bedroom apartment,

where the children could not join her. She refused to permit the Division access

to her father's home, and while she said she was employed as a bartender, she

did not provide details about her employer or compensation. The Division

indicated it was willing to pay for a security deposit and furniture for an

A-3549-22 13 apartment if Sara provided proof she could pay rent, but she never provided

evidence of employment. The Division also provided Sara with information

regarding therapists in the Bronx, but she did not contact any of them.

In October 2019, Alison Strasser Winston, Ph.D, conducted a

psychological evaluation of Kaleb, during which he reported that Sara had hit

him with "her hands, belt, anything she had." He also said it was "upsetting"

and "confusing" when the family moved from "place to place." Kaleb

emphasized that he did not want to return to Sara's care and wanted to be

adopted. Dr. Winston found that Kaleb had "clearly experienced significant

trauma as a result of his history of instability, as manifested by his behavi oral

issues . . . and his frequent refusal to attend visitation with" Sara . While she

found that Kaleb had some affection for his mother, she concluded that he would

experience minimal emotional impact if his relationship with her ended. By

contrast, Dr. Winston said Kaleb would experience enduring harm if reunified

with Sara, which would exacerbate his anxiety, insecurity, and anger.

During this time frame, Division workers noted that Sara was inattentive

to her children during visits; she fell asleep twice, refused to kiss and hug Kaleb

when he asked, and shoved and ignored him. On one occasion, when Kaleb did

A-3549-22 14 not want to attend the visit because he wanted to participate in after-school

activities, Sara asked why Kaleb could decline visits, but she could not.

The Division used its immigration legal specialist to explore whether the

children might be placed with Mary in Canada. The Division learned Kinship

Legal Guardianship (KLG) would not be an option, and Mary would have to

initiate the adoption process through an accredited Canadian agency. Without

adoption, the children might not be eligible for school or insurance in Canada .

Kaleb told Sara he wanted to remain with his resource family. Nora also told

the Division she did not want to move to Canada, because she "[didn't] know

[her] aunt or anyone there." Later, Sara told the Division she wanted the

children to be placed with Mary in Canada.

In late 2019, Sara underwent a psychiatric evaluation with Jenny

Blanchard, D.O. Sara told Dr. Blanchard she was a songwriter and screenwriter,

and that she came to the United States while she was in high school to compete

as a runner. Dr. Blanchard characterized Sara's thought processes as "grandiose

with delusions including paranoid type." Dr. Blanchard diagnosed Sara with

unspecified bipolar and unrelated disorder with psychotic features.

During several months in 2020, Sara did not respond to the Division's

communications or visit with the children. By the end of the year, she told the

A-3549-22 15 Division she only wanted to have virtual visits with the children. She ultimately

did not attend any of the scheduled virtual visits. Thereafter, she stopped having

any contact with the Division.

Dr. Kanen conducted a bonding evaluation of Nora and Doreen in October

2020. The psychologist concluded that Nora was securely attached to Doreen

and would suffer serious harm if separated from her. He found that Doreen was

"warm, nurturing, and attentive" to Nora, who saw her as a parent.

After discussions regarding the differences between adoption and KLG,

Kaleb's resource parents indicated they would prefer KLG. Therefore, the

Division's long-term permanency goal for Kaleb was KLG with his resource

family, and its goal for Nora was adoption by Doreen.

In January 2021, Sara attended another psychological and bonding

evaluation with Dr. Kanen, who found that Sara had no awareness that the

removal of the children from their resource parents could have a negative impact

on them. Dr. Kanen stated that Sara also took no responsibility for the children

being out of her care and did not discuss any plans to work toward reunification.

Sara said she had no weaknesses as a parent. Her IQ testing result remained

within the "borderline" range.

A-3549-22 16 Dr. Kanen opined that Sara's "severe parenting deficits" were "chronic in

nature" and had not changed since the last evaluation. He said her "personality

problems" were "enduring, pervasive, inflexible . . . and not amenable to

treatment that would result in long[-]term improvements of functioning." As a

result, he concluded that Sara was unable to provide the care and supervision

her children needed, predicting that if they were returned to her care, she was

likely to "leav[e] them unattended to get her own needs satisfied."

During the bonding evaluation, Dr. Kanen observed that Kaleb and Nora

interacted primarily with each other, while Sara gave most of her attention to

Amy. Nora did not seek Sara's attention and had no issue separating from her

at the end of the session. Sara brought Christmas presents only for the girls, but

Kaleb showed no reaction to being left out. Dr. Kanen concluded that Nora and

Kaleb had an impaired attachment to their mother, that Amy had no attachment

to her at all, and that none of the children would suffer serious and enduring

harm if permanently separated from her.

Dr. Kanen also performed a bonding evaluation of Nora and Amy with

Mary. Mary said she planned to find a place to live part-time in New Jersey so

the children could get to know her. Mary had met the children once the year

before and had subsequently participated in some virtual visits. Dr. Kanen found

A-3549-22 17 that Nora and Amy had no attachment to Mary; he noted that Nora did not treat

Mary as a parental figure and appeared relieved when the evaluation was over.

Dr. Kanen stated that Nora would suffer serious harm if she was removed from

Doreen and placed with Mary. He similarly found that Amy was strongly

attached to Jaime and would suffer enduring harm if removed from her. The

Division ruled out Mary as a placement option for Nora.

In February 2021, Sara informed the Division she was residing in New

Jersey, but she refused to provide her address and said the children could not

live with her. She was unemployed and not looking for a job. Sara continued

requesting virtual visits with the children, but the court ordered the visits were

to be in-person.

First Guardianship Trial and Aftermath

The first guardianship trial, which addressed only Nora and Amy, was

held in June and July 2021 before Judge Barbara J. Buono Stanton. Sara

attended the trial only sporadically, even though being offered the ability to

attend virtually. When she did connect via Zoom, Sara was often admonished

by Judge Buono Stanton for not paying attention to the proceedings; she left the

call to change clothes, put on makeup while on video, sometimes connected from

public places, and failed to reconnect after lunch recesses. One day, when a

A-3549-22 18 Division worker agreed to pick Sara up to ensure her timely attendance, Sara

was not at the address she gave and texted that she had gone to another city

instead. The reasons Sara gave for her lack of attendance and attention included

that she "had things to do" or had "dozed off."

On August 31, 2021, Judge Buono Stanton denied the Division's

complaint to terminate Sara's parental rights as to Nora and Amy . The judge

concluded that the Division satisfied prongs one and two of the best interests of

the child test under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1.

In addressing prong three, the judge found the Division had provided Sara

reasonable and adequate services, but it did not fully consider alternatives to

termination. Specifically, the judge stated the Division did not fully consider

Mary and assist her with either moving to New Jersey or adopting the children

in Canada.

As to prong four, the judge found the Division had not given Nora and

Amy a chance to bond with Mary. The judge also stated the Division needed to

inquire further into whether the girls' adoption into different homes would be in

their best interests.

After Mary advised she was interested in adopting all three children, Sara

said she would surrender her parental rights to Mary. The Division consulted

A-3549-22 19 with immigration specialists and Canadian authorities to explore various options

for the children to be placed with Mary. The Division also initiated regular

overnight visits with Mary, and virtual visits twice a week.

At the time, Kaleb still resided in the same treatment home, but his

caregivers were no longer interested in KLG, and he had been recommended for

discharge from the residence. Kaleb expressed that he wanted to remain in his

current community, in a regular resource home, or with Mary.

The Division paid for Mary to stay in a hotel in New Jersey to visit with

Amy and Nora on the weekends and supported her in developing a relationship

with all three children. Mary said she planned to apply for a work visa so she

could move to the United States. The Division agreed to help Mary find an

apartment in New Jersey and to pay the security deposit.

One of Sara's relatives offered Mary a job with his business, when she

relocated to New Jersey. Mary stated that she was willing to do KLG with the

children, but that she preferred to adopt them. The court accepted the

permanency goal of adoption by a relative. Sara had stopped responding to any

Division communications and when she came to visits with the children, she

arrived very late and did not interact with them.

A-3549-22 20 In March 2022, the Division paid $4,400 to assist Mary to obtain an

apartment in New Jersey and said it could pay her a monthly stipend of $907 per

month once Kaleb was placed with her and additional money when Amy and

Nora joined her. The apartment required renovations to make it ready for Mary

and the children. In the meantime, the Division offered to pay for Mary to stay

in a hotel with Kaleb while the girls remained with their resource mothers, but

Mary declined.

On March 16, 2022, the Division filed its second complaint for

termination of parental rights. The same day, Kaleb told the Division he no

longer wanted to visit with his mother, but that he wanted to see his sisters and

Mary. A few days later, the Division provided Mary a "KLG versus Adoption

Fact Sheet" and asked her to review and sign it. Although Sara continued to

miss visits with the children, she told the Division she had changed her mind

and did not want the children to visit with Mary or be placed with her.

Sara attended a psychological and bonding evaluation with Karen Wells,

Psy.D., in July 2022. She said she was currently residing in a friend's home.

Sara admitted she could not reunify with the children at that time, but also said

she did not trust Mary and did not want the children placed with her. She also

complained about Jaime, claiming she was "shady" and forced Amy to call her

A-3549-22 21 "mom." Sara said she wanted Amy removed from Jaime although she had no

concerns about Jaime's ability to care for the child. Sara had no plan to obtain

independent housing for herself and the children, and Dr. Wells said she did not

appear distressed about not being with them.

Dr. Wells found that Sara displayed delusional and paranoid thinking and

interpersonal relationship issues, and that she was impatient, easily frustrated,

and emotionally volatile. She diagnosed Sara with unspecified bipolar and

personality disorders with psychotic, paranoid, and narcissistic features .

Dr. Wells concluded there was "little to no indication that [Sara]

possess[ed] the capacity, and perhaps lack[ed] the willingness, to make

substantial life changes to facilitate reunification." The psychologist expressed

concern about Sara's ability to assume responsibility for her actions, and said

Sara could not effectively provide nurturing, protection, or stability for the

children in the foreseeable future. She stated that placing the children in Sara's

care would subject them to "disorder, dysfunction, and chaos." Dr. Wells opined

there were no services that could help Sara alter her chronic inability to parent .

During the bonding evaluation, Dr. Wells observed that while the children

had a familiarity with Sara, there were no indications that any of them perceived

her as their psychological parent. Sara's primary focus was on Amy. In contrast,

A-3549-22 22 when Kaleb asked Sara to braid his hair, she told him she could not because of

her fingernails. Sara also criticized Kaleb's acne and weight. When the

evaluation was over, the children separated from Sara without distress.

Dr. Wells concluded that Kaleb and Nora had only an "insecure" and

"fluid" attachment to Sara, while Amy had no emotional attachment to her. She

defined "fluid" as an understanding by the child that the adult is not a stable

presence in the child's life. Dr. Wells similarly found that Sara did not seem to

have an attachment to the children. She concluded that if Sara's parental rights

were terminated, the three children would not experience any emotional or

psychological harm.

Dr. Wells also conducted a bonding evaluation of Amy with Jaime and

Jaime's adoptive son L.B. (Liam). During the interview, Jaime said she was

committed to adopting Amy, and did not want KLG because of concerns about

Sara's decision making and inconsistency. She reported that Amy had

behavioral problems after some visits with Sara. During the evaluation, Dr.

Wells observed that Jaime was affectionate with Amy and supervised and

managed her appropriately. She found that Amy had a secure bond with Jaime,

sought out her attention, and viewed her as her psychological parent. She also

noted that Amy and Liam related to each other like siblings. Dr. Wells

A-3549-22 23 concluded that Amy would experience "a profound sense of loss, grief[,] and

distress" resulting in "unnecessary and undue trauma" if separated from Jaime .

Dr. Wells also conducted a bonding evaluation of the children and Mary.

She observed that Mary appropriately balanced her attention among the children

and related to them "in a loving, gentle and kind manner." Nevertheless, Dr.

Wells found that Mary did not have the capacity to provide permanency for the

children and she continued to be indecisive as to whether she would relocate at

all, negatively affecting the children's trust in her. She recommended the

Division pursue alternate plans for permanency besides Mary.

Shortly thereafter, Mary told the Division she did not know when she

would move to the United States or how she would afford to do so and care for

the children. She said the relative was no longer offering her a job. The Division

workers continued trying to assist and encourage Mary, but she said she could

not afford rent in New Jersey, and she asked the Division for $2,000 in monthly

assistance.

In August 2022, the Division ruled out Mary due to her lack of housing in

the United States and the fact that she could not commit to obtaining a home

here in the future. Despite the Division's assistance, she had missed several

move-in dates at the apartment renovated for her and eventually lost the home.

A-3549-22 24 In addition, she had not completed a resource parent application, had not spoken

with an immigration attorney, and still needed to complete fingerprinting and

resource home paperwork. Around this time, Kaleb joined Amy in Jaime's

resource home and reported that living in that home was "great."

In October 2022, Mary indicated that she wanted to adopt the children in

Canada. However, she did not obtain suitable housing for all three children in

Canada or provide information regarding her health insurance or other

requirements.

Dr. Wells conducted bonding evaluations of all three children with Jaime,

and Nora with Doreen.3 Jaime said she was committed to adopting Kaleb and

Amy, and Doreen still wanted to adopt Nora. Kaleb was amenable to adoption

by Jaime and said that while he was not opposed to visiting with Sara, he wanted

to be able to decline if he had other plans. Nora wanted to live with Mary, her

mother, or Doreen, in that order. Doreen said that if she adopted Nora, she

would continue to permit the child to have contact with Sara and Mary.

3 Nora was included in the evaluation with Jaime because she had frequent visits with her siblings at Jaime's home and Jaime had expressed a willingness to adopt her as well, if necessary. Dr. Wells observed that Nora exhibited no evidence of a parent-child type bond with Jaime but appeared comfortable around her. A-3549-22 25 Dr. Wells found that Kaleb, who was almost sixteen, was thriving in

Jaime's home and would benefit from permanency there alongside four-year-old

Amy. Kaleb had begun calling Jaime "mommy" and told Dr. Wells he wanted

to stay with her. Dr. Wells found that Kaleb had bonded with Jaime because he

"wants somebody to be in his life who is going to be reliable and predictable

and she's offering that for him." She opined that if Kaleb was separated from

Jaime, this would add to the negative impacts he had already experienced due to

the multiple separations and rejections from his mother, prior resource family,

and Mary. Dr. Wells further said that if Mary was revisited as a caretaker, it

would be difficult for Kaleb to accept her as a secure parent, and he would

struggle with relocating to Canada because he was well-established socially in

his school and current community. Dr. Wells again found that Amy was securely

bonded to Jaime and would suffer "devastating" harm if removed from her .

Dr. Wells found that Nora's interactions with Doreen demonstrated an

intact and secure attachment and Nora viewed Doreen as her psychological

parent. Dr. Wells opined that the reason for Nora's stated preference to live with

Sara was that Nora wanted to have the same kind of relationship she saw other

girls share with their mothers. She thought Nora preferred Mary because she

was fun to stay with and treated the children kindly.

A-3549-22 26 However, Dr. Wells observed that Nora had lived with Doreen, whom she

called "grandmom" and "mommy," for several years, and felt "secure" in her

home. She opined that while Nora might more easily transition to Mary's care

than Kaleb or Amy would, if she moved to Canada, she would lose the regular

contact she had with her siblings—a relationship Dr. Wells characterized as

"paramount."

Sara failed to appear at a scheduled psychological and parenting fitness

evaluation with Eric Kirschner, Ph.D. However, Dr. Kirschner conducted

bonding evaluations of the children with their respective resource parents, and

of Nora with Mary based on her stated preference to live with her great -aunt.

Kaleb was unwilling to participate in a bonding evaluation with Mary, and said

he did not want to live with her.

Nora again stated that she would be "happy" to live with Mary, but also

said she "want[ed] to stay where" she was. At this evaluation, Nora did not

express any desire to live with Sara, saying that her first preference was to be

placed with Mary and her second was to stay with Doreen. Dr. Kirschner found

that Nora acted "emotionally distant" and "quiet" with Mary. He suggested that

Nora's stated preference could be explained by the "vacation-like" quality of

A-3549-22 27 their visits. In contrast, Nora was "energetic" and "interactive" with Doreen and

stayed close to her during the evaluation.

Dr. Kirschner concluded that Nora had a secure bond with Doreen and

viewed her as a psychological parent. He testified that if she was removed from

Doreen, she would experience psychological harm and trauma that could affect

her capacity to trust others and maintain her self-concept. While stating that

preserving a biological family was important, Dr. Kirschner found that Nora was

not attached to Mary and would not be harmed if not placed with her, and that

Mary would not be able to mitigate the impact of Nora being removed from

Doreen.

Dr. Kirschner found that Kaleb was "in desperate need of permanency"

without further delay. He noted that Kaleb had "begun to develop a parent-child

bond with" Jaime and wanted to remain with her. During the evaluation, where

all three siblings were present along with Liam, all of the children were "playful"

together, and Kaleb referred to Jaime as "mommy." Dr. Kirschner concluded

that removing Kaleb from Jaime and his sister Amy would do him more harm

than good. Dr. Kirschner also opined that all three children urgently needed

permanency.

A-3549-22 28 Second Guardianship Trial

The second guardianship trial took place on nonconsecutive days between

February and June 2023 before Judge Buono Stanton. Kaleb was almost sixteen

years old, Nora was almost ten, and Amy was five.

The parties stipulated that all testimonial and documentary evidence

admitted in the first trial would be admitted and considered by the court at the

second trial. They also stipulated to the court incorporating its factual findings

from its August 31, 2021, opinion and adopting them as to Kaleb, who had not

been a party in the first trial.

Several caseworkers testified as discussed above regarding Sara's lack of

communication with the Division, her refusal to permit entry into anywhere she

was living, her failure to attend family team meetings and appointments, and the

lack of any interaction with the children during the visits she did attend. The

Division also explained the exhaustive efforts it took regarding Mary in her

search for a home in the United States and renovating the apartment the Division

obtained for her. However, as stated, Mary did not move to this country, and

did not commence the international adoption process.

The caseworkers testified regarding their multiple discussions with Jaime

and Doreen about KLG and adoption and that both resource parents preferred

A-3549-22 29 adoption. Both Jaime and Dorren testified. They described the frequent visits

they provided for the siblings together as they lived only ten minutes apart. They

planned to maintain contact between the siblings and with Mary after adoption.

Drs. Kirschner and Wells testified as described above. Both advised

reunification with Sara was not a possibility. Dr. Wells also opined that

adoption would be a better option for all the children than KLG, because it would

provide them with more certainty and a sense of permanency.

Court's Decision

Following the close of evidence, Judge Buono Stanton issued a

comprehensive written decision and order on June 14, 2023, terminating Sara's

parental rights to the three children.

Judge Buono Stanton found the Division workers' testimony was credible.

She also found that Doreen and Jaime were credible witnesses, commenting that

"[t]heir candor (and emotion) as reflected in their voices garnered believability

of their testimony."

The judge found that the Division had worked with Sara to locate stable

housing; paid for her and the children to stay in shelters and hotels; offered visits

with the children after their removal and provided transportation to facilitate

those visits; referred Sara to psychological and psychiatric evaluations to

A-3549-22 30 determine her ability to parent and any services that could assist her; and then

offered individual therapy and parenting skills training.

Judge Buono Stanton determined that since its prior decision on August

31, 2021, Sara "ha[d] not engaged in any consistent services" and was difficult

for the Division to contact. The judge noted that Sara was discharged from

therapy programs for noncompliance. The judge also found, that at the time of

the second trial, despite the Division's assistance, Sara remained unemployed

and without stable housing, that she continually prevented the Division from

assessing her current residence, and that she had "failed to complete any

Division service aimed at reunification, other than attending some portion of the

supervised visitation." The judge further found that the "quality" of the visits

Sara did attend was "affected by [her] behavior," stating that, for example, she

was "preoccupied with her hair and makeup during visits" and upset Kaleb by

commenting negatively on his appearance.

Judge Buono Stanton summarized the Division's efforts to place the

children with Mary both in New Jersey and in Canada. She also discussed the

Division's communications with and assessments of numerous relative

placements and its reasons for ruling them out. Most of the relative placements

did not want to be caretakers for the children. The judge also found that Doreen

A-3549-22 31 was committed to adopting Nora, and Jaime was committed to adopting Amy

and Kaleb, that they both had backup plans for the children's care, that they

understood "the difference between KLG and adoption," and that they were

committed to maintaining the siblings' relationship.

Judge Buono Stanton summarized and credited the expert testimony

provided by Drs. Wells and Kirschner about the bonding evaluations they

performed, and Dr. Wells's testimony regarding her psychological evaluation of

Sara. The judge noted that Dr. Kirschner was "highly concern[ed]" that Sara

failed to attend her scheduled psychological and bonding evaluations with him,

when considered "in conjunction with the findings of previous evaluations ,

which indicated that [Sara] is unable to meet her children's needs."

As in her previous decision, Judge Buono Stanton again found the

Division had established prong one of the best interests analysis under N.J.S.A.

30:4C:15.1(a). She noted that Sara had never provided day-to-day care or

nurturing to Amy, and did not do so for Kaleb or Nora "for a protracted period

of time from 2017 to [the] present." The judge found that Sara received no

prenatal care for Amy and had no housing plan for her when she was born . She

further found that Nora sustained second-degree burns to her legs while in Sara's

care, that Sara had often left her children alone and unsupervised, and that Sara

A-3549-22 32 had more than once been asked to leave a shelter or apartment and had no plan

for where she and the children could live.

The judge found that since her first decision, Sara had "persistently failed

to perform any meaningful parental functions to provide any of her children with

care, stability[,] and permanency," and had failed to complete and outright

refused needed services. She also cited Sara's inconsistency with visitation and

poor behavior when she did attend, and her lack of consistent employment.

The judge found that Sara's "lack of stability and seeming lack of interest

in securing a home and providing parental attention" was a "grave concern ." She

concluded the Division had demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that

the children's "health, safety[,] and development were endangered by the

parental relationship with [Sara]."

As to prong two, Judge Buono Stanton again pointed to Sara's continued

failure to provide "proof of employment, stable housing or any parenting plan

for" Kaleb, Nora, or Amy. Further, she stated "[Sara's] lack of regular,

consistent and quality visits [wa]s more than enough . . . for [the] court to find

she ha[d] withheld critically necessary parental attention and care to her

children." The judge noted that despite the Division's assistance with

transportation, "including car pick-ups, bus tickets, and train passes," Sara

A-3549-22 33 cancelled and arrived late to many visits, causing the children to experience

"disappointment." The judge reiterated that Sara fell asleep, engaged in self-

care activities, and focused on her cell phone during visits, ignoring the children .

Judge Buono Stanton discussed the expert testimony from both trials

opining that Sara had "severe parenting deficits" and "personality problems" that

contributed to her history of unstable housing and inability to provide proper

childcare. The judge noted that during her 2021 psychological evaluation with

Dr. Kanen, the doctor asked Sara "why it ha[d] been so difficult to get her

children back," and she replied, "I don't know. They block me. It's not my

fault." The judge gave weight to Dr. Kanen's unrebutted testimony, stipulated

to in the second trial, that Sara "has poor [judgment], is unreliable, inconsistent,

[and] 'extremely' self-centered, feels very entitled, [is] insensitive to the needs

of the children, and placed her own needs over her children." The judge credited

Dr. Kanen's conclusion that "the children would be placed at an unnecessary risk

of harm if placed in [Sara's] care."

Judge Buono Stanton also gave weight to Dr. Wells's testimony that Sara

"continues to be insensitive to the effects out of home placement has had on the

children" and that Sara "has no emotional capacity to assume any parental role

or care for her children." She also noted that Dr. Wells concluded that Sara did

A-3549-22 34 not show "willingness to implement the requisite changes" to her life and

behavior that were "necessary for reunification."

The judge found that through its involvement with the family, which had

"span[ned] over a decade," the Division had "conducted significant evaluations,

examining [Sara] on an individual basis, as well as her bond with her children ."

She found that based on the record, Sara had "demonstrated substantial parental

shortcomings, both in practice as a parent, and during clinical observations."

The judge concluded that the Division had proven by clear and convincing

evidence that Sara was "unable and unwilling to eliminate the harm facing

[Kaleb, Nora, and Amy] and the delay of permanent placement will only

exacerbate that harm."

In addressing prong three, Judge Buono Stanton first considered the

services the Division provided to Sara and found they were sufficient and

appropriate. She again discussed the Division's assistance with visitation and

temporary placement in shelters. She also found the Division tried to help Sara

obtain employment by referring her to job fairs, sending her job listings, and

providing babysitting while she job hunted. Additionally, the judge found the

Division had referred Sara to parenting skills training and therapy, but that Sara

had "never engaged consistently" with these services and "recently in 2022 was

A-3549-22 35 terminated from [a program] for noncompliance." The judge concluded that to

date, Sara had made "no progress . . . to address any issues that led to the

children's removal and to effectuate reunification."

Judge Buono Stanton next considered whether the Division had made

reasonable efforts to explore alternatives to termination. She reiterated all the

relatives the Division had considered, finding that most had stated outright that

they did not want to care for any of the children. The judge stated the Division

had "cured" the deficiency she found after the first trial.

The judge noted the Division facilitated visits between Mary and the

children and "made efforts to assist" her in obtaining an apartment in New

Jersey, even paying a security deposit for her and ensuring renovations were

completed. The Division also "went to significant lengths to assist [Mary] with

the immigration process," by giving her instructions on how to apply for a visa

and offering to help her meet with an immigration attorney. The judge found

that despite these efforts, Mary never moved to New Jersey. The judge also

found the Division properly explored the possibility of placing the children with

Mary in Canada, but this could not move forward because adoption was not

possible without Sara's rights first being terminated.

A-3549-22 36 Judge Buono Stanton concluded that since the first trial, the Division had

"gone to significant lengths to explore" relative placements. She stated she was

"no longer concerned that the possible alternatives to termination of parental

rights were not fully considered." The judge found the Division had established

prong three by clear and convincing evidence.

As to prong four, the judge considered the results of the bonding

evaluations Dr. Wells performed of the children with Sara and their respective

resource mothers in July and December 2022, and those performed by Dr.

Kirschner of Nora with Doreen, and Kaleb with Jaime in January 2023. In

particular, the judge noted that these experts had both found that the children

would suffer significant emotional and psychological harm if separated from

their resource parents but would experience little to no distress if their

relationships with Sara were severed. The judge concluded that based on the

"comprehensive, unrebutted, expert evaluations," the Division had proven by

clear and convincing evidence that termination of Sara's parental rights would

not do more harm than good. The court terminated Sara's rights to the three

children on June 14, 2023.

On appeal, Sara argues that the court erred in terminating her parental

rights because the Division did not prove the elements of the best interests of

A-3549-22 37 the child test set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1. The Law Guardians for the

children urge this court to affirm the trial judge's order.

Our review of a decision to terminate parental rights is limited. N.J. Div.

of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007). We must determine

whether the decision is supported by substantial and credible evidence. N.J.

Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 448 (2012). We will defer

to the trial court's factual findings, because that court has a superior ability to

gauge witness credibility and "possesses special expertise in matters related to

the family." Ibid. The conclusions that flow from those findings are also

entitled to deference. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. R.L., 388 N.J. Super.

81, 89 (App. Div. 2006). Ultimately, a family court's decision should not be

overturned unless it went so "wide of the mark" that reversal is needed "to

correct an injustice." F.M., 211 N.J. at 448 (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam.

Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008)).

"Parents have a constitutional right to raise their children," id. at 447, but

it is tempered by the State's responsibility to protect the welfare of children. In

re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440, 471 (2002). Because termination

permanently severs the legal relationship between parent and child, it should be

ordered only where "proof of parental unfitness is clear." F.M., 211 N.J. at 447.

A-3549-22 38 The court must focus its inquiry upon the best interests of the child. Ibid.

Parental rights should only be terminated when:

(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.

[N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a).]

These four criteria "are not discr[ete] and separate, but overlap with each

other . . . to identify a child's best interests." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs.

v. A.G., 344 N.J. Super. 418, 434 (App. Div. 2001). The burden is upon the

State to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a parent "has not

cured the initial cause of harm and will continue to cause serious and lasting

harm to the child." In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1, 10 (1992). "[A]ll

doubts must be resolved against termination of parental rights." In re

A-3549-22 39 Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347 (1999). The court must consider

"not only whether the parent is fit, but also whether he or she can become fit

within time to assume the parental role necessary to meet the child's needs."

R.L., 388 N.J. Super. at 87.

After careful review, we are satisfied Judge Buono Stanton properly

considered all the statutory prongs of the best interests test and found the

Division met its burden by clear and convincing evidence. We affirm

substantially for the reasons expressed in her well-reasoned opinion.

In considering prongs one and two, the judge did not improperly focus on

Sara's poverty as she contends. While Sara's homelessness may be due to a

relative lack of means, the judge did not give undue weight to this factor, instead

considering it alongside several others.

First, Sara has never cared for Amy; Nora suffered second-degree burns

while in her care; Sara often left all her children unsupervised; and her behavior

caused her eviction from an apartment, multiple shelters, and her uncle's home

when she had no other plan in place for her children's housing.

Second, Sara's failure to find housing where her children could join her

may have been due in part to poverty but also resulted from her lack of effort to

seek and maintain gainful employment despite the Division's assistance.

A-3549-22 40 Third, as the judge repeatedly stated, Sara was inconsistent with visitation,

was often late to the visits she did attend, and often ignored the children in favor

of using her phone or doing her hair and makeup. While some of Sara's visits

may have included "positive" behavior, the record is replete with evidence

supporting the judge's finding that these instances were outweighed by those

where she showed a lack of attention or care.

Fourth, the judge discussed the expert testimony and reports indicating

that Sara had personality disorders that contributed to her history of unstable

housing and failure to provide adequate care to the children when they lived

with her or during visits after removal. The judge's consideration of Sara's

psychological issues was appropriate, as her conditions had deleterious effects

on the children; she subjected them to instability, blamed others for her

shortcomings, was often difficult to locate even for visitation, and has

essentially withdrawn her parental affection and care from the children.

Finally, the record showed that Sara's participation in needed services was

sporadic and marked by repeated discharges for lack of attendance and

noncompliance. Although Sara did make significant progress toward the goal

of "addressing her trauma," as she argues on appeal, the record demonstrates

that she did not make any meaningful strides toward addressing or curing the

A-3549-22 41 issues that caused the removal of her children. Indeed, she started and dropped

out of therapy so many times that the service provider refused to take any more

referrals for her. In addition, Sara failed to attend the most recent scheduled

psychological and bonding evaluations with Dr. Kirschner despite knowing the

second guardianship trial was impending. She also regularly refused services

and did not respond to the Division's communications about the case throughout

the several years of its involvement with the family. In the meantime, Kaleb

and Nora have remained without their mother since 2017, and Amy has never

known her as a caregiver.

In short, Sara has demonstrated that she gives low priority to achieving

the stability necessary for reunification. As a result, the children have suffered

harm and there is no indication that Sara is willing or able to ameliorate that

harm.

In addressing prong three, Sara asserts the Division inappropriately

focused on Mary to her exclusion. We disagree. In her opinion following the

first trial, Judge Buono Stanton ordered the Division to more fully explore Mary

as a relative placement for the children. The Division complied with that order,

attempting to provide Mary with housing assistance while also continuing to

assist Sara.

A-3549-22 42 In the June 2023 opinion, Judge Buono Stanton found the Division

assisted Sara with finding stable housing. The evidence establishes that the

Division paid for Sara to stay in shelters and hotels with the children and sent

her information about apartments in New Jersey and New York post-removal.

Sara failed to look at this information in a timely fashion and did not follow up

on any of the leads. The Division also provided Sara with help to find work,

transporting her to at least one job fair and telling her about others, and sending

her job listings. Sara did not take advantage of any of this assistance, remained

unemployed, refused to provide any details about jobs she allegedly held for

short periods of time, and failed to save any money.

The judge also found the Division offered Sara regular visits with the

children and referred her many times to therapy and parenting skills programs.

That these efforts ultimately failed to facilitate reunification was not the

Division's fault, as Sara continually failed to attend scheduled sessions, visits,

and meetings and was repeatedly discharged from therapeutic services. "When

a parent 'refuse[s] to engage in therapy or other services,' that factor suggests

efforts to reunite the family are no longer reasonable." N.J. Div. of Child Prot.

& Permanency v. A.S.K., 457 N.J. Super. 304, 328 (App. Div. 2017) (alteration

in original) (quoting N. J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591,

A-3549-22 43 610 (1986)). The judge did not err in finding the Division provided reasonable

services to Sara under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(c).

We find Sara's argument meritless that the Division did not fully explore

alternatives to the termination of parental rights. The record reflects the

Division considered numerous relatives for placement, most of whom did not

wish to act as caregivers. If the Division determines that a relative is unwilling

or unable to assume care of the child, it is not required to re-evaluate him or her

later. N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12.1(b). Thus, the judge properly relied on the Division's

earlier decisions ruling out various relatives.

Judge Buono Stanton also discussed in detail the Division's efforts to help

Mary obtain housing in New Jersey and to, alternatively, begin the process of

an international adoption, and the ultimate discontinuation of those efforts due

to Mary's failures to follow through. She also noted Drs. Wells's and Kirschner's

opinions concerning the lack of parental bonds between the children and Mary.

We also reject Sara's argument that there was insufficient evidence that

Doreen and Jaime understood the differences between KLG and adoption before

they stated a preference for the latter. The Division's witnesses testified, and

the documentary record confirmed, that they discussed the two options with

Doreen and Jaime, who were also provided with a "Fact Sheet" comparing and

A-3549-22 44 contrasting them. Doreen and Jaime confirmed this process occurred; both

testified that Division workers spoke with them about the differences multiple

times. Both women were clear that they understood what KLG and adoption

each entailed and had arrived at an informed preference for adoption. The judge

did not err in concluding that the Division established prong three of the best

interests test.

In addressing prong four, Sara asserts the judge gave "undue weight" to

Drs. Wells's and Kirschner's expert opinions in finding the Division satisfied the

prong. Sara contends that Dr. Kirschner should not have been permitted to opine

on whether she could parent the children, because he "never interviewed or

observed her and relied primarily on the hearsay opinions of other experts ."

Prong four addresses whether termination "will not do more harm than

good." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4). In evaluating prong four, a court must

inquire into and compare the children's relationships with their biological and

resource parents. K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 355. There is an inherent risk stemming

from the loss of the custody of a birth parent. Ibid. However, a court must also

consider "the paramount need . . . children have for permanent and defined

parent-child relationships." J.C., 129 N.J. at 26. Thus, prong four does not

require that "no harm will befall the child as a result of the severing of biological

A-3549-22 45 ties." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 355. Instead, the court must balance the child's

relationships with her birth and resource parents and determine whether the child

will suffer greater harm from the termination of ties with the former than with

the latter. J.N.H., 172 N.J. at 478. The State should offer testimony of an expert

who has made "a comprehensive, objective, and informed evaluation" of the

child's relationships. J.C., 129 N.J. at 19. Termination is appropriate where it

"will result, among other things, in a permanent resolution of the child's status."

A.W., 103 N.J. at 610.

The courts have held that "'termination of parental rights likely will not

do more harm than good' where the child has bonded with the resource parents

in a nurturing and safe home." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. L.J.D., 428

N.J. Super. 451, 492 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting E.P., 196 N.J. at 108). The

Division therefore may establish prong four by presenting clear and convincing

evidence "that separating the child from his or her foster parents would cause

serious and enduring emotional or psychological harm." J.C., 129 N.J. at 19.

However, because the biological parent's rights are so important, termination

cannot be based entirely on the child's strong bond with his foster parents

without a concomitant finding of parental fault, even if the child will be greatly

A-3549-22 46 harmed by the bond's severance. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. D.M., 414

N.J. Super. 56, 74-75 (App. Div. 2010).

We discern no error in the trial judge's reliance on Drs. Wells's and

Kirschner's reports when assessing prong four. Although these experts admitted

they did not review every single page in the Division's file before rendering their

opinions, they did review key testimony and reports and made their own

observations during their respective evaluations. The record was replete with

evidence that Sara did not provide proper supervision, attention, or care to Kaleb

and Nora while they lived with her. Further, following the children's removal,

Sara was given ample opportunity to display her parenting skills during visits,

yet she cancelled or failed to appear, and at many visits she did attend, she

arrived late or tended to her own desires instead of interacting with the children.

Drs. Wells's and Kirschner's opinions were supported by sufficient evidence.

We find meritless Sara's contention that Dr. Kirschner should not have

been permitted to opine on her parental fitness because he did not interview her.

Sara chose not to attend the interview or bonding evaluation scheduled with him.

This, in itself, made Dr. Kirschner "highly concerned" about her willingness and

ability to care for the children, and it was appropriate for the judge to take that

into consideration alongside the mountain of evidence indicating that Sara

A-3549-22 47 lacked insight into how her actions could affect the children and lead to the

termination of her parental rights.

Moreover, the judge's conclusions on prong four were not based solely on

Dr. Kirschner's opinions, but on Dr. Wells's too. Dr. Wells conducted a full

interview, psychological evaluation, and bonding evaluation of Sara, and she,

like Dr. Kirschner, opined that Sara would not be able to parent the children

safely in the foreseeable future.

There was considerable evidence that Kaleb, Nora, and Amy had formed

positive, nurturing, and loving relationships with their respective resource

mothers, who were committed to adopting them. Multiple bonding evaluations

by several professionals led to the same conclusions: that removing the children

from their resource parents would do them serious psychological harm, while

severing their relationship with Sara would cause no distress at all. This is not

a case where termination of parental rights will leave the children in limbo.

Instead, Kaleb, Nora, and Amy will be able to achieve permanency and maintain

the stability in their lives that Doreen and Jaime have provided, which Sara could

not. Judge Buono Stanton properly concluded the Division demonstrated that

termination would not do more harm than good, establishing prong four.

A-3549-22 48 The trial judge's decision terminating Sara's parental rights was supported

by sufficient credible evidence and was not so "wide of the mark" as to warrant

reversal. F.M., 211 N.J. at 448 (quoting E.P., 196 N.J. at 104).

Affirmed.

A-3549-22 49