Articles Posted in parental rights

|

I often get asked questions about the Division of Child Protection & Permanency, more commonly referred to by its old name, DYFS. Specializing in child abuse and welfare defense, it is not uncommon for both individuals and family law attorneys who do not specialize in this area to have questions when the Division becomes involved with a family. One frequent question is whether it is necessary to retain an attorney if the Division has not actually taken parents to court, but rather is involved with the family on what I would refer to as an administrative level.

To answer this question, it is important to understand the role of the Division of Child Protection & Permanency on at least a basic level. The Division is responsible for investigating calls alleging abuse or neglect of a child. These calls are often anonymous and there is no minimal level of proof that triggers an investigation. When the Division gets a call, they must investigate. Investigating the allegation may include coming to the family’s home and assessing for any safety concerns, speaking to both the parent(s) and the child(ren), and speaking to professionals involved with the child(ren) such as the school or daycare and their pediatrician.

Upon completion of its investigation, the Division will make one of four findings: Substantiated, Established, Not Established and Unfounded. A finding of Unfounded means there is not a preponderance of evidence that a child has been abused or neglected and the evidence indicates the child was not harmed or placed at risk of harm. Such a finding will not be reported and remains confidential, and often any Division records regarding the allegation and investigation will be eligible to be expunged after three years (understand this is not always true). A finding of Not Established again means that there is not a preponderance of evidence that a child has been abused or neglected, but some evidence indicates the child was harmed or placed at risk of harm. This finding will not be reported and remains confidential, but the Division’s records may not be expunged and will be permanently maintained by the agency. A finding of Not Established may be appealed, but only to the Appellate Division within 45 days of receipt of the finding. pexels-pixabay-236215-300x198

Continue reading ›

|

covid19-300x200Co-parenting children when parents are separated or divorced can be challenging in normal circumstances.  One would agree, however, that times are not normal.  The country is in the midst of a pandemic due to the COVID-19 virus.  Governor Murphy has closed schools and many business, and he has directed that we engage in “social distancing” and stay at home for the indefinite future.

Families all over the State are concerned about their children’s health and well-being, not to mention family finances due to the number of people who have lost jobs, been furloughed or suffered from cuts in pay or hours.  Existing arrangements for custody and parenting time were designed for normal circumstances, not necessarily for unprecedented times such as these.

Questions may arise as to how  separated parents address custody, parenting time and child support issues.  To what extent do existing orders have to be followed? Generally, many existing agreements or orders for parenting time can and should be followed.  However, can a parent withhold or refuse parenting time?  What happens if a parent or child is exposed to the coronavirus or is at heightened risk of exposure?  What if a parent, child or family member begins to exhibit symptoms?  How should parents accommodate a household that has an elderly family member or a family member with a health condition which makes COVID-19 particularly deadly?  What if one of the parents lives out of state and the child has to travel some extended distance?  What if the households do not have the same social distancing practices?   Can both parents’ homes accommodate educating the children while school is closed?  Should parenting time be modified to reflect that both parents are home more either due to having lost their jobs or they are working from home?

Continue reading ›

|

In the matter of  New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. A.S.K. (A-50-17 ___ N.J. ___ (App. d744f80a269bdfa75c34d7830ed52c13-1-300x200Div. 2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s decision to terminate the parental rights of E.M.C. (“Eric”) to his son, A.E.C. (“Adam”) based on the record and the application of the best-interests-of-the-child test. Although the Supreme Court affirmed the decision to terminate Eric’s parental rights, the Court found that the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (“DCPP”) made errors regarding the inability to locate Eric, which delayed the child from receiving permanency for an additional 2 1/2 years. The Supreme Court stated that DCPP’s processes would be enhanced by conducting a new search for a parent at each phase of litigation and implementing procedures that retain a party’s past contact information.

Termination of parental rights is warranted when DCPP establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the codified four prongs of the best-interests-of-the-child test are met. The four prongs of that 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. Such harm may include evidence that separating the child from his resource family parents would cause serious and enduring emotional or psychological harm to the child;” (3) whether “[t]he [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) whether “[t]ermination of parental rights will not do more harm than good.”

In this case, the child, Adam, was born on November 14, 2009 and he began living with Eric in March, 2012.  Before Adam came to live with him, Eric had last seen him in July 2011. Adam lived with Eric until July 2013. During that time, DCPP received referrals in April 2012 and September 2012. Eric cooperated with both investigations. Because Adam was residing with Eric, an allegation of abuse and neglect against Adam’s mother, A.K. (“Ali”) resulting from the April 2012 referral was deemed unsubstantiated.

Continue reading ›

|

On May 3, 2018 the New Jersey Appellate  Division published the case of DCPP VS. T.D., R.C. AND R.G., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.G., B.C. AND A.G. (FG-20-0040-13, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-4918-c1b55e653e97997fd3f08500aae0ee83-225x30015T1/A-4923-15T1), an Opinion affirming the trial court’s decision to not terminate the parental rights of T.D., a mother suffering from multiple sclerosis, and R.C., the father of her two youngest children, born in 2012 and 2014, and removed from the care of their parents soon after birth.  The Appellate Division, in denying the appeals of the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division), and the Law Guardian on behalf of the two young children, stated that the “United States Supreme Court has held that biological parents’ relationships with their children ‘is an interest far more precious than any property right.’ Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59 (1982). Therefore, New Jersey courts protect that interest by imposing “strict standards for the termination of parental rights.” Continue reading ›

|

 

For the third time since 2012, the New Jersey lawmakers have passed legislation that would allow persons to enter into gestational carrier agreements; namely for the intended parents to enter into a contract with a woman 21 years of age or older to become pregnant by assisted reproductive technology without the use of her own egg, and to surrender custody of the child to the intended parent immediately upon birth, and considered neither an adoption nor termination of parental rights, as long as the requirements of the statute are strictly adhered to. While two prior legislative attempts were vetoed by then Gov. Christie, it is expected that this Baby-M-movie-300x238current legislation (S482) will be signed by Gov. Murphy soon and become law. Many people continue to refer to the agreements covered by the statute as “surrogacy contracts”, and that they would in effect overturn the Supreme Court ruling in Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (1988) which deemed such surrogacy contracts invalid. Continue reading ›

|

How does the law define what constitutes a parent and who is a parent?  According to New Jersey’s Parentage Act, a “parent and child relationship” is “the legal relationship existing between a child and the child’s natural or adoptive parents, incident to which the law confers or imposes rights, privileges, duties, and obligations. It includes the mother and child relationship and the father and child relationship.” N.J.S.A. 9A:17-39.   With advances in technology, many more people have been able to conceive and have a child.  Over the years, that has meant that family law has had to adapt to new circumstances by which file0002066893977-225x300people might have children, and thus disputes about having children.  Continue reading ›