DCPP v. D.D. AND J.M., IN THE MATTER OF S.M. (FN-03-0113-17, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                    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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0364-20
    NEW JERSEY DIVISION
    OF CHILD PROTECTION
    AND PERMANENCY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    D.D.,
    Defendant-Appellant,
    and
    J.M.,
    Defendant.
    __________________________
    IN THE MATTER OF S.M.,
    a minor.
    __________________________
    Submitted December 16, 2021 – Decided January 31, 2022
    Before Judges Mawla and Mitterhoff.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County,
    FN-03-0113-17.
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
    appellant (Richard Foster, Assistant Deputy Public
    Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
    Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for
    respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
    General, of counsel; Meaghan Goulding, Deputy
    Attorney General, on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    In this Title Nine case, defendant D.D. (Dana) 1 appeals from a March 28,
    2017 order finding that she abused or neglected her eldest daughter – S.M.
    (Sasha) – by allowing the child's stepfather to return to the home after the
    Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) substantiated
    allegations that he had sexually abused S.M. pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c).2
    We affirm.
    On appeal, Dana raises the following arguments:
    1
    We use fictious names to protect the privacy interests of the parties and
    confidentiality of the record. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
    2
    D.J. (Derrick) did not participate in the underlying litigation and is not appealing
    the Title Nine finding against him.
    A-0364-20
    2
    POINT I
    REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ABUSE AND
    NEGLECT ADJUDICATION AGAINST [DANA] IS
    WARRANTED AS A MATTER OF LAW, BECAUSE
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION
    OF THE LAW REGARDING CORROBORATION OF
    THE CHILD'S OUT-OF-COURT ALLEGATIONS.
    A.    The Court Erred In Holding That
    Corroboration Was Provided By [Sasha's]
    Supposedly Consistent Repetition Of Her
    Allegations.
    B.    The Court Erred In Holding That
    Corroboration Of [Sasha's] March 2016 Sexual
    Abuse Allegations Was Provided by [Dana's]
    Admission That She Allowed [Derrick] To Come
    To The Home To Visit His Children In November
    2016.
    C.    The Court Erred In Holding That
    Corroboration Of [Sasha's] Sexual Abuse
    Allegations Was Provided By "Medical And
    Scientific Evidence," As There Was No Such
    Evidence In The Record.
    POINT II
    THE COURT ERRED IN BASING ITS ABUSE AND
    NEGLECT JUDGMENT IN SUBSTANTIAL PART
    UPON THE CHILD ABUSE PEDIATRICIAN'S
    TESTIMONY AS BOTH EXPERT WITNESS AND
    LAY WITNESS, AS THE EXPERT TESTIMONY
    WAS WITHOUT PROPER MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC
    BASIS AND THE LAY OPINION TESTIMONY WAS
    NOT EXCLUSIVELY RELIANT ON PERSONAL
    KNOWLEDGE.
    A-0364-20
    3
    POINT III
    UNDER     THE    TOTALITY      OF     THE
    CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE, THE TRIAL
    COURT DENIED [DANA] THE LEVEL OF DUE
    PROCESS AND "FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS"
    THAT NEW JERSEY LAW REQUIRES IN
    [DIVISION] MATTERS BY ITS COMPLETE
    RELIANCE ON THE [DIVISION] WORKER'S
    WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF, AND TESTIMONY
    ABOUT, [SASHA'S] PROSECUTOR INTERVIEW
    INSTEAD OF DIRECTLY VIEWING VIDEO OF
    THE INTERVIEW, OR TAKING TESTIMONY
    FROM [SASHA] IN CAMERA, ESPECIALLY
    GIVEN THE FAILURE OF [THE DIVISION] TO
    PRESENT THE INTERVIEWING DETECTIVE AS A
    WITNESS    OR     TO   PRESENT       ANY
    PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE REGARDING THE
    ALLEGED CAUSES OF [SASHA'S] DISTRESS.
    POINT IV
    THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT [DANA]
    "KNEW" IN NOVEMBER 2016 THAT [SASHA]
    HAD BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY
    [DERRICK] WAS CONJECTURE, WITHOUT
    SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, AND
    THE RESULTING DETERMINATION THAT
    [DANA] WILLINGLY HARMED [SASHA] AND
    PUT HER AT RISK BY ALLOWING [DERRICK] IN
    THE HOME MUST BE REVERSED.
    POINT V
    REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS COURT CAN
    AFFIRM THE TRIAL COURT'S DETERMINATION
    THAT [DERRICK] SEXUALLY ABUSED [SASHA],
    A-0364-20
    4
    IT SHOULD NEVERTHELESS REVERSE THE
    DETERMINATION THAT [DANA'S] ACTS AND
    OMISSIONS CONSTITUTED TITLE [NINE] ABUSE
    AND NEGLECT OF [SASHA], BASED ON [THE
    DIVISION'S]  FAILURE      TO    PRESENT
    PARTICULARIZED EVIDENCE OF HOW THE
    PARENTAL BEHAVIORS HARMED [SASHA], OR
    PUT HER IN IMMINENT DANGER AND AT
    SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM.
    Our review of the Family Part's abuse or neglect finding is limited. N.J.
    Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. S.H., 
    439 N.J. Super. 137
    , 144 (App. Div. 2015).
    We must determine whether the decision "is supported by 'substantial and
    credible evidence' on the record." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M.,
    
    211 N.J. 420
    , 448 (2012) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.M.,
    
    189 N.J. 261
    , 279 (2007)). We defer to the Family Part's factual findings
    because that court "has the superior ability to gauge the credibility of the
    witnesses . . . and because it possesses special expertise in matters related to the
    family." 
    Ibid.
     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." 
    Ibid.
    (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. E.P., 
    196 N.J. 88
    , 104 (2008)).
    The court's interpretation of the law or its legal conclusions are reviewed de
    novo. State ex rel. A.B., 
    219 N.J. 542
    , 554-55 (2014).
    A-0364-20
    5
    The adjudication of abuse or neglect is governed by Title Nine, which is
    designed to protect children. N.J.S.A. 9:6-1 to -8.114. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-
    8.21(c), an abused or neglected child is:
    a child less than [eighteen] years of age whose parent
    . . . (2) creates or allows to be created a substantial or
    ongoing risk of physical injury to such child by other
    than accidental means which would be likely to cause
    death or serious or protracted disfigurement, or
    protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
    bodily organ; (3) commits or allows to be committed an
    act of sexual abuse against the child; (4) or a child
    whose physical, mental, or emotional condition has
    been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming
    impaired as the result of the failure of his parent . . . to
    exercise a minimum degree of care . . . (b) in providing
    the child with proper supervision or guardianship, by
    unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted
    harm, or substantial risk thereof, including the
    infliction of excessive corporal punishment; or by any
    other acts of a similarly serious nature requiring the aid
    of the court . . . .
    The Division "must prove that the child is 'abused or neglected' by a
    preponderance of the evidence, and only through the admission of 'competent,
    material and relevant evidence.'" N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. P.W.R.,
    
    205 N.J. 17
    , 32 (2011) (quoting N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(b)). Each case of alleged
    abuse "requires careful, individual scrutiny" and is "generally fact sensitive."
    
    Id. at 33
    .    The proofs must be evaluated based on the totality of the
    circumstances. 
    Id. at 39
    .
    A-0364-20
    6
    The statute does not require the child to suffer actual harm. N.J.S.A. 9:6 -
    8.21(c)(4). Instead, abuse or neglect is established when a child's "physical,
    mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of
    becoming impaired." 
    Ibid.
     When there is an absence of actual harm, but there
    exists a substantial risk of harm or imminent danger, the court must consider
    whether the parent exercised a "minimum degree of care" under the
    circumstances. N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. S.I., 
    437 N.J. Super. 142
    ,
    153 (App. Div. 2014) see N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. J.A., 
    436 N.J. Super. 61
    , 68 (App. Div. 2014) (finding that a minimum degree of care
    "means 'grossly or wantonly negligent, but not necessarily intentional' conduct."
    (quoting G.S. v. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 
    157 N.J. 161
    , 178 (1999))).
    Dana is a mother of six children, including Sasha. Dana is married to
    Derrick, who is the father of two of her children and stepfather to Sasha.
    On March 6, 2016, the Division received a referral from the Willingboro
    Police Department that Sasha, then thirteen years old, had alleged that Derrick
    raped her. When the officer initially responded to the home, he found Dana,
    Derrick, Sasha, and M.J. (Michael)3 arguing. Michael told the officer that Sasha
    3
    Michael is Derrick's brother.
    A-0364-20
    7
    showed him a note from her diary that indicated that she was raped when she
    was younger and that it never stopped. When the officer read the diary, 4 he
    observed comments that Sasha felt dirty and blamed herself.           The officer
    escorted Derrick from the home. The Division later assessed the home and
    spoke to Dana.
    On March 23, 2016, Sasha was examined by Dr. Monique Higginbotham,
    a pediatrician at the CARES Institute. Dr. Higginbotham obtained a history
    from Dana. In her report, Dr. Higginbotham indicates that Dana, who appeared
    visibly distressed, was told by Michael that Sasha gave him a note indicating
    that she and Derrick were "having sex every other night." Dana also told Dr.
    Higginbotham that Sasha directly disclosed that they had sex, but Dana was
    unsure if that is true or not. Dana reported that Michael observed that Sasha
    threatened to kill herself and was taken to a hospital due to this apparent suicide
    attempt.5 Dana reported that Sasha has been crying every day.
    Dr. Higginbotham also interviewed Sasha. Sasha refused to permit Dr.
    Higginbotham to conduct a physical examination. Sasha revealed that the first
    4
    The diary did not reference Derrick by name.
    5
    Dr. Higginbotham documented that Sasha had no prior history of anxiety,
    depression, or suicide attempts.
    A-0364-20
    8
    person she confided in about the sexual abuse allegations was Michael. Sasha
    disclosed that she did, in fact, try to kill herself but Michael intervened. Sasha
    indicated that the suicide attempt was related to the incidents with Derrick. At
    the time of the interview, Sasha told Dr. Higginbotham that she still sometimes
    felt suicidal. Sasha declined to talk specifically about the nature of the sexual
    abuse. Sasha informed Dr. Higginbotham that Dana took her best friend away
    from her because she was afraid they would have sex; when asked if they had
    sex, Sasha replied "I feel violated, and I will always feel violated. Why would
    I let anyone else do that?"
    Based on the reported disclosures and her apparent suicide attempt, Dr.
    Higginbotham suspected Sasha was sexually abused.             Dr. Higginbotham
    recommended that Sasha undergo a psychiatric evaluation, to screen for suicide
    and depression, as well as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. Dr.
    Higginbotham noted that a safety assessment was warranted for Sasha as the
    alleged perpetrator is a close family member and she may be at risk for further
    harm in his presence.
    Following an investigation, the Division substantiated the allegations that
    Derrick sexually abused Sasha. N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)(1); N.J.A.C. 3A:10-
    A-0364-20
    9
    7.3(d). Derrick never requested an administrative hearing to appeal that finding.
    See N.J.A.C. 3A:5-2.5.
    On July 6, 2016, Dana and the Division entered into a family agreement. 6
    The agreement, which Dana signed, required that Dana would not allow Derrick
    to have any contact with Sasha "because he was substantiated for sexually
    abusing [Sasha]."
    On November 1, 2016, the Division investigated a referral that Sasha was
    "fighting a lot" in school and a report that she was homicidal because Dana kept
    "allowing the man who molested her into the home." Another referral was made
    on November 23, 2016, due to allegations that Sasha was hitting the other
    children and left them unattended at the park.
    In a subsequent interview with Division workers, Dana admitted that she
    allowed Derrick to sleep at home one night. Dana also admitted that she picked
    up Derrick during the week and brought him home to visit his children. She
    indicated that Sasha typically left the home when Derrick came to visit.
    Sasha, in an interview with Division workers, indicated that she refused
    to go back home because Dana kept allowing Derrick back into the home. She
    6
    The family agreement permitted Derrick to have only supervised visitation with
    his two children.
    A-0364-20
    10
    told the workers that Derrick slept there on a regular basis. As a result, she was
    forced to leave the house daily because she was uncomfortable and in fear that
    Derrick might abuse her again. She revealed that Derrick started abusing her
    when she was nine years old until she told Michael about the abuse around h er
    thirteenth birthday. Sasha asserted that, while Dana initially believed her, Dana
    "started calling her a liar." She stated that she had contemplated killing herself
    in the past because Dana was choosing Derrick over her. Sasha also indicated
    that some days she did not eat because she was depressed. The caseworker asked
    Sasha if she would be willing to speak with police, and Sasha answered in the
    affirmative.
    On November 27, 2016, the Division received a third referral from the
    Willingboro Police Department after Sasha ran away because Dana let Derrick
    back into the home. Based on that referral, the Division conducted a Dodd
    removal of Sasha that same day.7
    On December 30, 2016, Sasha was interviewed by Sgt. Mike Krug.
    During that interview, she informed Sgt. Krug that Derrick had raped her more
    7
    "A 'Dodd removal' refers to the emergency removal of a child from the home
    without a court order, pursuant to the Dodd Act, which, as amended, is found at
    N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.82." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. N.S., 
    412 N.J. Super. 593
    , 609 n.2 (App. Div. 2010).
    A-0364-20
    11
    than one hundred times.       Sasha indicated that she told Michael about the
    allegations after she got caught trying to kill herself and, in fact, on one occasion
    did cut herself. When Sgt. Krug tried to get Sasha to open up about the specifics
    of the allegations, she kept telling him that he could not look at her.
    On March 28, 2017, a Title Nine fact-finding hearing was conducted. The
    Division called two witnesses: Sasha's treating physician, Dr. Higginbotham,
    and the case manager, Jennifer Palumbo.
    Dr. Higginbotham has worked as a child abuse pediatrician at the CARES
    Institute for five years and is board-certified in general and child abuse
    pediatrics.8 Dr. Higginbotham testified about her interviews of Dana and Sasha
    in March 2016 and about her findings based on those interviews.                   Dr.
    Higginbotham indicated that, during her second evaluation of Sasha, which
    occurred in March 2017, she found no evidence of STDs or sexual trauma, and
    Sasha's hymen was still intact and there was no sign of transection.             She
    highlighted, however, that she did not expect any findings related to sexual
    8
    Over the objection of the Law Guardian, but not Dana's counsel, the judge accepted
    Dr. Higginbotham as an expert in child abuse pediatrics. Child abuse pediatrics
    encompasses child sexual abuse.
    A-0364-20
    12
    trauma because Sasha indicated that the "last time . . . something happened with
    [Derrick] had been a year prior to her being examined . . . ."9
    Palumbo testified she is an intake worker who has been employed by the
    Division for seven years. She testified about Derrick's substantiated case, the
    family agreement that Dana signed, and the three referrals and subsequent
    investigation.
    Dana did not call any witnesses. Dana's counsel took no position on the
    Division's request for a Title Nine finding against Derrick but argued the family
    agreement was insufficient to establish a Title Nine finding against Dana.
    Dana's counsel contended that Dr. Higginbotham's testimony did not establish
    any physical evidence of sexual abuse and that Sasha's behavioral issues were
    consistent with other issues. Dana's counsel conceded, however, that Derrick
    would visit the home and Sasha would consequently leave the home.
    At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge issued his oral decision finding
    Dana had abused or neglected her daughter.              He determined that Sasha's
    allegations were specific, expansive, and consistent. The judge found t hat
    Sasha's testimony was corroborated by Dana's admission of allowing Derrick
    9
    Specifically, two days before Sasha's thirteenth birthday.
    A-0364-20
    13
    into the home, the medical and scientific evidence provided by Dr.
    Higginbotham, and the effect that it had on the child. 10 The judge also observed
    that the manner in which Sasha behaved during her statement to Sgt. Krug –
    including the facts that she was in the corner, she did not want to look at him,
    she was hiding under her jacket, and she was writing on a board rather than
    speaking – highlighted the traumatic nature of the incidents.
    With respect to Dana, the judge found that:
    What is important is that [Dana] knew that
    [Derrick] had sexually assaulted her daughter, yet she
    permitted [–] agreement or not, validity or not [–]
    [Derrick] back in the home on a regular basis. She
    acknowledged it.
    This caused [Sasha] to suffer even more
    emotional harm than she already had suffered. This
    caused [Sasha] to run away, and this caused [Sasha]
    also to be at substantial risk for this to happen again.
    Indeed, the judge observed that:
    And certainly it breaks your heart to hear the
    child's view, and it is a justified view that [Dana] is
    choosing [Derrick] over [her]. And that is emotional
    harm, to the [c]ourt.
    This whole issue, well, okay, he should be able to
    come over to the house and visit his children and
    10
    The judge noted that "children can have breakdowns and have suicide attempts
    and can even feel very, very badly about things for other reasons other than sexual
    abuse, but it all fits here, and it is all explained."
    A-0364-20
    14
    besides, this is a married couple, and so it is almost
    seemingly like it is okay, [Sasha] should leave. If
    [Derrick] comes over, then [Sasha] should leave.
    No. She is a child. She is the one that should not
    have to take action to protect herself.
    She can't drive. She is [thirteen] when this is
    going on. It is not her responsibility. It is not up to her
    to do this. It is the mother's job. [Dana's] job.
    Based on the above, the judge concluded that Dana created or allowed to
    be created a substantial risk of ongoing injury, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(2), because
    she allowed [Derrick] to be in the same location with
    the child knowing that [Derrick] had sexually assaulted
    her child . . . on prior occasions, and knowing that this
    was something the Division was concerned about, and
    knowing that she was . . . not supposed to have them be
    in the same location[.]
    The judge also concluded that Dana failed to provide Sasha with adequate
    shelter when Derrick would come to the home, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(a), as
    well as the failure to provide Sasha with proper supervision and creating
    substantial risk by allowing Derrick back due to the potential acts of renewed
    sexual assault. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b). The judge issued an accompanying
    written order. This appeal followed.
    We reject Dana's argument that the judge erred in finding that Dana placed
    Sasha at risk of harm. Dana was aware of the sexual abuse because Sasha wrote
    A-0364-20
    15
    a note about it that Dana read and consequently sought therapy for Sasha. It is
    undisputed that the Division substantiated the allegations that Derrick sexually
    abused Sasha. Derrick did not request an administrative hearing to appeal that
    decision. On July 6, 2016, Dana signed the family agreement, which required
    that Dana not allow Derrick to have contact with Sasha. It is undisputed that
    Dana permitted Derrick to return to the home following the substantiation and
    despite the family agreement.
    We also reject Dana's argument that the trial court erred in its application
    of the law regarding corroboration of Sasha's out-of-court allegations. In an
    abuse or neglect proceeding, children's out-of-court statements "relating to any
    allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence; provided,
    however, that no such statement, if uncorroborated, shall be sufficient to make
    a fact[-]finding of abuse or neglect."     N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4).    "A child's
    statement need only be corroborated by '[s]ome direct or circumstantial evidence
    beyond the child's statement itself.'" N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v.
    A.D., 
    455 N.J. Super. 144
    , 157 (App. Div. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting
    N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. N.B., 
    452 N.J. Super. 513
    , 522 (App.
    Div. 2017)).
    A-0364-20
    16
    "The most effective types of corroborative evidence may be eyewitness
    testimony, a confession, an admission or medical or scientific evidence." 
    Ibid.
    (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. L.A., 
    357 N.J. Super. 155
    , 166
    (App. Div. 2003)).    Such indirect evidence has included "a child victim's
    precocious knowledge of sexual activity, a semen stain on a child's blanket, a
    child's nightmares and psychological evidence." N.J. Div. of Child Prot. &
    Permanency v. I.B., 
    441 N.J. Super. 585
    , 591 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting N.J.
    Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. Z.P.R., 
    351 N.J. Super. 427
    , 436 (App. Div.
    2002)). Evidence of "age-inappropriate sexual behavior" can also provide the
    necessary corroboration required under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.46(a)(4). Z.P.R., 
    351 N.J. Super. at 435-6
    . In N.B., the court found no corroboration where the child
    "denied thoughts of self-harm; his mood was normal and appropriate; he was
    cooperative during his evaluation; . . . and he denied problems with app etite,
    sleep, or mood." 452 N.J. Super. at 522.
    The Family Part judge correctly determined that there is ample evidence
    to corroborate Sasha's allegations of sexual abuse. As the judge found, Sasha's
    statements to various individuals, including Michael, Dr. Higginbotham,
    A-0364-20
    17
    Division workers, and Sgt. Krug, were consistent.11 Significantly, there was
    evidence of self-harm. Sasha, on at least one occasion, attempted to commit
    suicide. Even at the time of her interview, Sasha told Dr. Higginbotham that
    she still sometimes felt like killing herself.
    There is also evidence of disturbances in Sasha's mood and appetite. Dana
    informed Dr. Higginbotham that Sasha was crying almost every day. Sasha
    informed Division workers that some days she refused to eat because she was
    depressed. Indeed, one referral was due to reports that Sasha was fighting a lot
    in school. Finally, Sasha was largely uncooperative during interviews and
    evaluations. In the initial evaluation by Dr. Higginbotham, Sasha refused to
    undergo a physical examination. During her interview with Sgt. Krug, she could
    not verbalize the encounters with Derrick and was forced to write them down on
    a whiteboard. When pressed on the specifics, Sasha kept telling Sgt. Krug that
    he could not look at her. At one point in the interview, Sasha went to the corner
    of the room and put her winter jacket over her head.
    We discern no error in the judge's finding that there was ample
    corroborative evidence to support his conclusion that Derrick sexually abused
    11
    When reviewing a child's hearsay statement under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), the court
    may consider the child's repetition and consistency of statements, but "consistency
    alone does not constitute corroboration." N.B., 452 N.J. Super. at 523.
    A-0364-20
    18
    Sasha, that Dana knew of the abuse, and took no steps to protect her daughter in
    violation of her agreement with the Division.
    To the extent not addressed, we conclude Dana's remaining arguments
    lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
    3(e)(1)(E).
    Affirmed.
    A-0364-20
    19