Dcpp v. Y.A.J., in the Matter of the Guardianship of N.S.J.

RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1651-25 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANECY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Y.A.J.,1 Defendant-Appellant, and R.N.J., Defendant. ________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF N.S.J., a minor. _________________________ Argued October 6, 2026 – Decided November 5, 2026 1 We use initials and pseudonyms to protect the identity of the parties and confidentiality of these proceedings. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).  Before Judges Rose and Jablonski. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-0037-25. Meghan K. Gulczynski, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney; Meghan K. Gulczynski, of counsel and on the briefs). Jessica A. Prentice, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Deborah E. Wassel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jessica A. Prentice, on the brief). Noel C. Devlin, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Law Guardian, argued the cause for minor N.S.J. (Meredith A. Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Noel C. Devlin, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Y.A.J. (Yessenia) appeals from a June 17, 2025, Family Part order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, N.S.J. (Nina), born in 2017. The law guardian joins the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division), urging us to affirm. Following our deferential review, we affirm the trial judge's decision concluding the Division proved all four prongs of the best interests test under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). A-1651-25 2  I. We summarize the facts from the substantial trial record.2 The Division first became involved with Yessenia's family in September 2019, after Yessenia brought two-year-old Nina to the hospital for vaginal pain and bleeding. Yessenia reported she had left the child with a neighbor while she ran errands and believed one of the neighbor's male guests sexually assaulted her. A sexual- assault examination revealed no evidence of sexual trauma. During that same hospital visit, Yessenia was treated for facial fractures and reported Nina's father, R.J. (Ron),3 had punched her in the face in Nina's presence following an argument about bringing the child to the hospital. The Division substantiated Yessenia as a victim of domestic violence, offered services, and continued monitoring the family. In the months that followed, the Division received additional referrals concerning inadequate supervision, Nina's behavioral difficulties, and Yessenia's substance use. A subsequent medical evaluation found no evidence Nina had been sexually or 2 Yessenia's appellate appendix includes twelve volumes, containing more than 2,000 pages of documents. 3 A default judgment was entered against Ron terminating his parental rights to Yessenia. He is not a party to this appeal. A-1651-25 3 physically abused. Although Yessenia denied alcohol abuse, she acknowledged marijuana use and refused to complete a substance-abuse evaluation. In November 2019, Division workers observed feces smeared on the door of Yessenia's apartment during a scheduled home visit. Yessenia explained she had done so to deter intruders and stated Ron had arranged for women to break into her home. She again refused a substance-abuse assessment. The following month, law enforcement referred the matter to the Division after a maintenance worker found Nina alone in the apartment, crying and holding her cat, while the apartment door stood open. When Yessenia returned, she gave inconsistent accounts of where she had been and how long Nina had been left unattended. Police further reported the apartment was in disarray and infested with insects. The Division offered Yessenia in-home parenting support, counseling, and parenting education, but she declined those services. The matter was closed in February 2021 after the Division concluded Nina was then safe in her mother's care. The Division received another referral in March 2021, after Yessenia posted a series of social-media messages and photographs suggesting Nina had been abused. The posts included close-up photographs purporting to show cuts, bruises, and a bald spot on Nina's scalp, together with assertions that Nina was A-1651-25 4 not her child, questions about the whereabouts of her "real" daughter, and claims someone was raping and torturing Nina. When caseworkers responded, Yessenia told them to leave her family alone, claimed the photographs were her own baby pictures, and described the posts as jokes. Although Nina then appeared healthy and the home was adequately maintained, the Division remained concerned about Yessenia's mental health and urged her to undergo a psychological evaluation. She refused. The matter escalated in December 2021. Police contacted the Division after officers responded to a disconnected 9-1-1 call from Yessenia's residence. Yessenia told the officers that "something strange" was happening in the apartment, asked to be taken to the hospital, and repeatedly asserted Batman and Catwoman were inside the residence and that an invisible person was sexually assaulting her while she slept. Officers found the apartment in substantial disarray: furniture had been overturned; food and debris were strewn on the floor; handprints and writings appeared on the walls; and the oven door was open. Yessenia was transported to the hospital and ultimately admitted to the psychiatric crisis unit where she became agitated, yelled, cursed, and spoke incoherently. A-1651-25 5  Because no other caregiver was immediately available, Nina remained in the pediatric emergency unit while the Division contacted relatives for an emergency placement. During that time, Nina displayed significant behavioral dysregulation. She punched and kicked staff, climbed on the bed, screamed, threw objects, and attempted to run from the room. Hospital staff ultimately placed her in restraints and medicated her. The next day, Yessenia's treating physician advised the Division her condition had not improved, and she would require involuntary commitment for approximately two weeks. The Division executed an emergency Dodd removal4 and placed Nina with her maternal great-grandmother, P.M. Yessenia signed emergency-removal paperwork and acknowledged she understood the Division would assume temporary custody of Nina. Yessenia was discharged approximately one week and a half later. Because this was her first psychiatric hospitalization and there was no known prior psychiatric history, her treating physician advised he could not assign a definitive diagnosis. Nonetheless, he believed Yessenia was suffering either from bipolar disorder with hallucinations or schizophrenia. Yessenia was later 4 A Dodd removal is an emergent removal of a minor without a court order pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.82, known as the Dodd Act. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17, 26 n.11 (2011). A-1651-25 6 determined to be stable, prescribed medication to stabilize her mood, and referred for outpatient follow-up. The Division referred Yessenia for substance-abuse treatment, therapeutic parenting time, parenting classes, and housing-related services. She largely failed to participate. In March 2022, psychologist Mark Singer, Ed.D., conducted an evaluation of Yessenia. She told Dr. Singer she did not understand why she had been referred, although she repeatedly described the appointment as "a psychotic evaluation." Dr. Singer observed markedly disordered thinking. Yessenia described seeing spirits and shadows, feeling disconnected from her own mind, and being unemployed, unhoused, and living in her car. Because she could not maintain focus, Dr. Singer was unable to complete formal testing, including the Personality Assessment Inventory and Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory. Nonetheless, he concluded she exhibited symptoms consistent with a thought disorder. Dr. Singer did not consider Yessenia a viable parenting option for Nina. He recommended the Division obtain Yessenia's psychiatric records, ensure psychiatric evaluation and medication management, secure her participation in individual therapy, continue supervised visitation, and address housing and A-1651-25 7 employment instability. He emphasized her thought patterns were "severely compromised" and, absent intervention, would likely worsen, further impairing her social functioning and parenting capacity. Meanwhile, Nina's placement with P.M. did not endure. By April 2022, P.M., then sixty-eight years old, advised the Division she could no longer manage Nina. She reported Nina ran away from her in public, kicked and slapped her, and created such disturbances in the apartment that neighbors complained. P.M. stated she lacked the emotional, mental, and physical stamina to continue caring for Nina. At her request, the Division sought another placement. By the end of May 2022, Nina was placed with a resource family. Over the next several months, Nina moved through four placements. Each resource family ultimately advised the Division it could no longer care for her because of her behavior. The record reflects tantrums, aggression toward other children, property destruction, toileting accidents, and persistent behavioral problems at school and summer camp. One resource family, who had initially expressed interest in becoming a permanent placement, also requested Nina's removal after she engaged in physical altercations with another child in the home, made inappropriate comments about the resource father, and displayed A-1651-25 8 sexualized behaviors. In December 2022, the Division placed Nina in a stabilization program for children with significant behavioral challenges . Yessenia's visitation during this period was inconsistent and often unproductive. While Nina lived with P.M., Yessenia attended a number of supervised visits without incident. After Nina entered resource placement, however, visits were held at the Division office. During one office visit, Yessenia initially interacted appropriately, but when Nina acted out, Yessenia failed to intervene and required prompting from staff to redirect the child. When the visit ended and Nina was returned to her resource placement, Nina screamed, cried, and kicked the vehicle seat. Yessenia showed no visible emotion, made no effort to comfort her, and simply walked away. Similar difficulties in later visits were documented. Yessenia's own psychiatric instability also interfered with visitation. In the fall of 2022, she was hospitalized twice and, after discharge, declined medication monitoring, individual therapy, and a referral to a trauma-informed residential program. In late December 2022, Robin Charleston, Ph.D., evaluated Nina. In a January 2023 report, Dr. Charleston diagnosed Nina with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, mixed receptive/expressive language disorder, and adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. She A-1651-25 9 documented hyperactivity, defiance, academic disruption, and disruptive behavior. Dr. Charleston also noted Nina had spoken to herself and reported hallucinations directing her to harm others—a concern heightened by Yessenia's mental-health history. Dr. Charleston further observed Nina appeared sexually preoccupied. Although Nina denied sexual abuse, Dr. Charleston noted Yessenia worked as an exotic dancer and Nina had likely seen her practicing routines in the home. Proceeding on the assumption reunification remained possible, Dr. Charleston nonetheless emphasized Yessenia would require substantial education and support to manage Nina's emotional and behavioral needs safely. In January 2023, the Division received another referral concerning Yessenia's parenting time. Yessenia arrived at the residential program smelling of marijuana, and after she left, another child found a bag of marijuana Yessenia apparently left behind. Thereafter, the residential program requested the Division transport Yessenia to visits to reduce the risk she would bring illicit substances to the facility. Although Yessenia denied smoking marijuana and claimed she used it to make vape pens and edibles for friends, she tested positive for cannabis each time she was screened during that period. Although her A-1651-25 10 marijuana use remained consistent, her compliance with prescribed psychiatric medication did not. As of spring 2023, Yessenia's mental health remained unstable. During one ride to the residential program, a Division worker observed her cursing, recording herself, arguing with the recording, and grabbing at her own arms while shouting, "Get the fuck off me." Later that month, she became irate when security staff would not allow her to bring scissors and a pointed comb into the Division office to style Nina's hair. Although staff told Yessenia she could still proceed with the visit, she left and cancelled it. Nina cried as she watched her mother depart. In August 2023, Nina was moved to a residential treatment home. From that point, Yessenia's visitation became increasingly sporadic. Although the Division offered in-person visits and provided transportation, Yessenia frequently requested virtual contact and then either arrived late or failed to appear. Most notably, she missed a scheduled visit on Nina's birthday. After threatening facility staff, Yessenia eventually was limited to virtual visitation. When she did participate, she often made promises she could not keep, including that Nina would soon return home, visit family, and have her own room. A-1651-25 11 According to the Division, those assurances agitated Nina and contributed to further dysregulation. In February 2024, Nina was again placed in resource care, but over the next two months she cycled through a series of homes, remaining in none for more than a week. During that same period, a Division caseworker advised Yessenia unless she complied with services and made meaningful progress, the Division would pursue adoption. By then, Nina had been in placement for more than twenty-three months. In March 2024, Nina's therapist reported Nina became visibly distressed whenever Yessenia was discussed. According to the therapist, Nina cried and acted out when her mother was mentioned and said that, although she loved her mother, she did not want to live with her because she did not feel safe. That same month, Nina was hospitalized after threatening an elderly member of a resource household and absconding from the residence. While hospitalized, she exposed herself to staff, jumped on the bed, smeared soap on the bathroom walls, spit, cursed, and soiled herself. When a Division worker contacted Yessenia to inform her Nina was in crisis, Yessenia responded that she did not want to talk and terminated the call. A-1651-25 12  In April 2024, the Division received another referral concerning Nina's placement, reporting she was running through the facility, spitting, damaging property, and refusing medication. When the Division attempted to discuss Nina's treatment plan with Yessenia, she was unable to remain focused and instead rambled incoherently. Joy Duckett, Psy.D., conducted a second psychological evaluation of Nina. In a May 2024 report, Dr. Duckett described a marked deterioration in Nina's condition. She noted, after Nina's March 2024 readmission to the residential program, staff reported her behavior deteriorated. Nina was jumping out of windows, throwing objects at others, and destroying property. During this period, Yessenia remained absent and did not visit Nina, either in person or virtually. Dr. Duckett also concluded Nina was likely suffering from depression. Nina reported persistent sadness, sleep difficulties, loneliness, a lack of friendships, and memory problems. Dr. Duckett identified the principal source of Nina's emotional difficulties in unmistakable terms: other than her removal from Yessenia's care and the resulting changes in caretaking, there was no known trauma history. In Dr. Duckett's opinion, Nina's separation from her mother at a young age interfered with her development and adversely affected A-1651-25 13 her functioning. She stressed Nina's need for structure, clear rules, close supervision, and a caregiver capable of recognizing and responding appropriately to childhood depression. In July 2024, the Division received reports Nina engaged in oral sexual conduct on multiple occasions with another seven-year-old child while at the residential program. The Division arranged a sexual-trauma evaluation, and the examining physician concluded Nina had likely been sexually abused. Further instability followed. In January 2025, Nina was taken to the hospital after alleging a teacher, while attempting to restrain her, had twisted her arm behind her back with sufficient force to injure her. The treating physician determined Nina sustained a fracture and opined the injury was consistent with her account. The physician concluded Nina had likely been physically abused and recommended an investigation. In March 2025, Dr. Singer conducted a second evaluation of Yessenia to determine whether her mental status and parenting capacity had improved. He concluded they had not. Yessenia reported she had not visited Nina since February 2024 and could not explain why. Her knowledge of Nina remained minimal. She knew Nina was hyperactive, had difficulty sleeping, and had A-1651-25 14 witnessed domestic violence, but did not know how Nina was performing in school, whether she took medication, or how she would handle even a routine childhood illness. When asked what she would do if Nina became sick, she stated children Nina's age do not get fevers. Her answers were tangential and disorganized. As in 2022, Dr. Singer could not complete formal testing because Yessenia failed to remain focused. He also observed multiple tics and found it particularly concerning Yessenia had stopped taking psychiatric medication against medical advice. Dr. Singer opined Yessenia's untreated mental illness created a substantial risk of harm. In his view, the stress of parenting would only exacerbate Yessenia's inability to focus. He concluded she was not likely to become a viable parenting option in the foreseeable future, was unlikely to benefit from additional services, and would likely continue to struggle with compliance. He recommended the Division pursue termination of Yessenia's parental rights to Nina. The Division filed its guardianship complaint in November 2024. A trial was conducted on June 6 and June 17, 2025. The Division presented documentary evidence and testimony from two caseworkers, and from Dr. Singer. Neither Yessenia nor the law guardian called witnesses. A-1651-25 15  The first caseworker described the Division's efforts both to assist Yessenia and locate an appropriate family placement for Nina. She testified, despite approval for temporary rental assistance, referrals to low-income housing, and offers of shelter placement, Yessenia remained unhoused. The caseworker also recounted the Division's extensive but unsuccessful efforts to identify a viable kinship placement. The second caseworker testified concerning Yessenia's repeated noncompliance with mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, which resulted in her discharge from programs. She also described Nina's circumstances at the time of trial, including group therapy, individual therapy, and medication monitoring. Although the Division pursued a select-home- adoption plan, the caseworker testified it was also considering I.H., an employee at the residential program, as a permanent placement. According to the caseworker, I.H. was working with the Division to become a licensed resource parent, had been informed of the difference between adoption and kinship legal guardianship, and was not interested in this disposition. In a letter of intent, I.H. acknowledged Nina's considerable needs but expressed her belief she could provide the consistency and emotional security Nina required. The caseworker further testified that, with Division approval, I.H. had taken Nina on outings, A-1651-25 16 attended her soccer games, and hosted a birthday party for her. Nina expressed a strong desire to be adopted by I.H., whom she referred to as her "mommy." The caseworker added that if I.H. did not ultimately adopt Nina, the Division would continue its search for adoptive resources. Dr. Singer testified consistently with his reports. He explained Yessenia's thought disturbance persisted over time and, despite years of services, there was little to suggest Yessenia became any more capable of parenting in 2025 than she had been in 2022. In his opinion, reunification would be a significant disservice to Nina, who required a highly structured, low-conflict environment. He further explained that he did not conduct a bonding evaluation because Yessenia and Nina had no direct physical contact since early 2024. Dr. Singer believed conducting a bonding evaluation would have been unfair to both Nina and Yessenia. He defined permanency as a child's assurance that a consistent, healthy parental figure would be and would remain available over time and testified that the absence of permanency is associated with depression, anxiety, and other adverse outcomes. He concluded affording Nina the opportunity to achieve permanency through termination of parental rights would do more good than harm. A-1651-25 17  In an oral opinion rendered on June 17, 2025, the Family Part judge found all three Division witnesses credible and placed particular reliance on Dr. Singer, whom he described as highly qualified, thorough, organized, and impartial. The judge observed the Division was involved with the family for more than five years and, despite that extended involvement, little had materially changed. In the judge's view, Yessenia had repeatedly demonstrated an inability to address her own serious difficulties, much less Nina's. Applying the four-prong best-interests standard, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a), the judge concluded the Division proved each prong by clear and convincing evidence. As to prong one, he found Nina's health, safety, and development had been and would continue to be endangered by the parental relationship. He cited Yessenia's untreated mental illness, unstable housing, noncompliance with treatment, and inconsistent visitation, all of which deprived Nina of stability and permanency. As to prong two, the judge found Yessenia remained unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing Nina or provide a safe and stable home, and further delay would only compound that harm. In the judge's words, Nina continued to languish in placement because of Yessenia's inability or unwillingness to provide her with a home. A-1651-25 18  On prong three, the judge found the Division had made reasonable efforts to help Yessenia correct the circumstances that led to Nina's placement and had considered alternatives to termination. He noted the Division's repeated efforts to engage Yessenia in psychiatric care, substance-abuse treatment, parenting services, visitation, housing assistance, and evaluations, as well as its extensive but unsuccessful search for relatives able to care for Nina. He concluded there were no realistic alternatives that would secure permanency for Nina. Finally, as to prong four, the judge found termination would not do more harm than good. He emphasized Nina's urgent need for permanency and concluded, notwithstanding some uncertainty regarding her ultimate adoptive placement, severing the parental relationship would better serve Nina's interests than prolonging instability. He explained the continuation of the relationship in its present form was itself harmful and that Nina was entitled to permanency. The judge terminated Yessenia's parental rights and she appealed. II. In essence, Yessenia argues the judgment of guardianship must be reversed because the trial judge made erroneous findings as to all four prongs of the best interests test. We disagree. We defer to Family Part judges' decisions in parental termination cases A-1651-25 19 and affirm their findings if the record contains "adequate, substantial, and credible evidence" to support the decision to terminate parental rights. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. D.C.A., 256 N.J. 4, 19 (2023); N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). We do so because the trial judge is best positioned to observe witnesses firsthand and evaluate their credibility. R.G., 217 N.J. at 552. We will only reverse a trial judge's findings of fact if they 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). We review all legal conclusions de novo. R.G., 217 N.J. at 552-53. In New Jersey, "[t]he balance between parental rights and the State's interest in the welfare of children is achieved through the best interests of the child standard" as codified in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(c) and N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347-48 (1999). The four prongs of the "best interests" test are: (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; A-1651-25 20  (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) (1) to (4).] The Division must prove each prong by clear and convincing evidence. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 280 (2007). The prongs overlap and are neither discrete nor separate. K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 348. Expressed differently, a trial judge must "consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether to terminate parental rights." D.C.A., 256 N.J. at 17. "The United States and New Jersey Constitutions protect parents' rights to maintain relationships with their children." R.G., 217 N.J. at 553. Courts charged with determining whether to terminate parental rights must "fully recognize the fundamental nature of parental rights and the importance of family integrity," K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 347, because termination of parental rights is a "severe" and "irreversible" state action, which "permanently cuts off the relationship between children and their biological parents." In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1, 10 (1992) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759 A-1651-25 21 (1982)). The clear preference under the law is to "keep[] children with their natural parents and resolving care and custody problems within the family." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. I.S., 202 N.J. 145, 165 (2010) (quoting In re J.C., 129 N.J. at 7-8). Nevertheless, "the constitutional imperative of preserving familial integrity is not absolute." N.J. Div. of Child Prot. and Permanency v. R.L.M., 236 N.J. 123, 145 (2018) (quoting Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84, 102 (2003)). Under its parens patriae responsibility, the State "may terminate parental rights if the child is at risk of serious physical or emotional harm or when necessary to protect the child's best interests." R.G., 217 N.J. at 553-54. Consequently, a "court may examine whether 'it is in the child's best interests to preserve the family unit' or sever the parent-child relationship." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. L.J.D., 428 N.J. Super. 451, 478 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.R.G., 361 N.J. Super. 46, 67 (App. Div. 2003)). "When the safety and welfare of a child become so irredeemably jeopardized by parental abuse or neglect, the State may take the most extreme form of action, which is to completely sever the relationship between a mother or father and a child." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 102 (2008). Actions for the termination of parental rights weigh parents' rights A-1651-25 22 against the State's responsibility to protect the welfare of the children. P.P., 180 N.J. at 506. In addition to weighing the four best interests prongs, "[t]he Family Part judge is charged with advancing the public policy of achieving a timely, permanent placement for the child." The need for permanency and stability is paramount. K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 357. However, a court must seek to achieve these ends expeditiously and must not allow children to "languish indefinitely in foster care while a birth parent attempts to correct the conditions that resulted in an out-of-home placement." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. S.F., 392 N.J. Super. 201, 210 (App. Div. 2007). "A child cannot be held prisoner of the rights of others, even those of his or her parents. 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. 215, 237 (App. Div. 2004). Considering the record under these principles, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the trial judge's thorough thirty-six-page oral opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following remarks. A. The record contains ample credible evidence supporting the trial judge's findings under both prongs one and two. The judge made detailed factual A-1651-25 23 findings concerning Yessenia's compromised mental health, untreated substance abuse, resistance to services, and chronic housing instability. Likewise, the judge's finding of parental unfitness was supported by unrefuted expert testimony establishing that Yessenia could not safely or appropriately care for Nina and was unlikely to attain that capacity in the foreseeable future. The record was replete with evidence of Yessenia's psychological impairment and her lack of insight into her mental-health condition. Her mental illness, disorganized thinking, and emotional dysregulation demonstrated an inability to modulate her own behavior and, in turn, to provide safe and stable care for Nina. Yessenia failed to take her prescribed medication, appeared resistant to treatment, and declined the higher level of care specifically recommended for her. Dr. Singer opined Yessenia was becoming "increasingly compromised" and was unlikely to benefit from additional services. Although she was offered and was provided numerous opportunities for treatment and support, she was either unwilling or unable to avail herself of those services. B. Yessenia's challenge to the judge's prong-three finding is similarly unavailing because the Division met its statutory burden, under N.J.S.A. 30:4C- 15.1(c), to make reasonable efforts, tailored to Yessenia's circumstances, to A-1651-25 24 facilitate reunification. The Division arranged visitation with Nina and referred Yessenia for outpatient therapy and medication monitoring. To promote continuity of care, the Division referred Yessenia to a successor program for mental-health treatment. When Yessenia was placed on a waitlist, the Division secured an additional therapy referral so services could begin sooner. It obtained and reviewed pertinent medical and psychiatric records, including records relating to her prior domestic-violence injuries and psychiatric hospitalization. In December 2022, the Division assessed Yessenia and recommended a higher level of care. It also provided parenting classes and other supportive services despite a psychological recommendation from Dr. Singer that any training should await psychiatric and psychological stabilization. Finally, to preserve family connections and pursue reunification-related permanency options, the Division placed Nina with her great-grandmother and, when that placement ended, identified, evaluated, and ruled out numerous relatives as possible caregivers. Taken together, these efforts show the Division actively addressed Yessenia’s mental-health, parenting, visitation, and family-placement issues and provided a coordinated array of services reasonably designed to support reunification. A-1651-25 25  C. Finally, we decline to disturb the judge's prong-four finding that termination of Yessenia's parental rights would not do more harm than good under N.J.S.A. 30:4A-15.1(a)(4). This prong "serves as a fail-safe against termination even where the remaining standards have been met." E.P., 196 N.J. at 108 (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 609 (2007)). "The question ultimately is not whether a biological mother or father is a worthy parent, but whether a child's interest[s] will best be served by completely terminating the child's relationship with that parent." Ibid. "Our courts have recognized that a child's relationship with a parent is of such significance that doubts are to be resolved against its destruction." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M., 375 N.J. Super. 235, 264 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting In re Guardianship of J.E.D., 217 N.J. Super. 1, 16 (App. Div. 1987)). "It also is widely understood that a 'child deeply needs association with a nurturing adult' and that 'permanence in itself is an important part of that nurture.'" E.P., 196 N.J. at 108 (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 610 (1986)). N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4) is satisfied "where it is shown that the bond with [the resource] parents is strong and, in comparison, the bond with the natural parent is not as strong." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 363. A-1651-25 26  The Division "should offer testimony of a 'well[-]qualified expert who has had [a] full opportunity to make a comprehensive, objective, and informed evaluation' of the child's relationship with both the natural parents and the [resource] parents." M.M., 189 N.J. at 281 (quoting In re J.C., 129 N.J. at 19). Prong four typically requires expert testimony based on a comparison of bonding evaluations. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. A.R., 405 N.J. Super. 418, 436-37 (App. Div. 2009). However, those evaluations are not required where termination "[is] not predicated upon bonding, but rather reflect[s] [the child]'s need for permanency and [the parent]'s inability to care for [the child] in the foreseeable future," N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. B.G.S., 291 N.J. Super. 582, 593 (App. Div. 1996). "[A] child's need for permanency is an extremely important consideratio