Decided June 1, 2010
If link does not work Google New Jersey Division Of Family Services v C.M.
[URL="https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A7408DYFSvCM.pdf"]https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A7408DYFSvCM.pdf[/URL]
In summary, psycological harm due to severing a bond between a child and his/her foster parents cannot, in and of itself, serve as a reason for Terminating a Parents Rights. This will impact many cases. I understand that bonding evaluation may no longer take place.
Read for yourself as I am no lawyer and my summary is a real summary..
here's anotherl ink to the case
[url=http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innjco20100611377]Laws, Life, and Legal Matters - Court Cases and Legal Information at Leagle.com - All Federal and State Appeals Court Cases in One Search[/url]
Thanks wcurry...
It is not the mother who 'took' to long. It was not an abuse or neglect case it was because the mother had two of the most severe illnesses a person can face - not just one very painful debilitating illness but two.
It was the court system that was in the wrong and took too much time and only after the court ruled TPR and no further visitation that bonding occurred between the child and the foster parents and that the original bond was still there...And they TPR'd after failing to prove 1,2, and 4 of the 4 prong test?
Kind regards,
Dickons
I'm not sure I read what everyone else read, but what I got was a father, who had an affair, got a girl pregnant and didn't know about it until the child was 18 months old. When he found out, he refused to take the child due to being married with children of his own and stated in court he did not want the child. Much, much later, when his wife through him out, he then decided he want the child. In the meantime, this child spent the first years of their life with the foster partents and didn't know the father.
I read the link wcurry posted which was about a mother with MS and Severe Scoliosis...
Kind regards,
Dickons
Dickons
I read the link wcurry posted which was about a mother with MS and Severe Scoliosis...
Kind regards,
Dickons
That's a totally different case than the OP. The initials for that case are CM not DM.
I read the link wcurry gave us. Is that the case the original OP was talking about? If not, can someone post a link to that case (I tried googling it, but wasn't very successful). Thanks.
[url=http://njcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/nj-division-of-youth-and-family.html]NJ Criminal Law- Recent Cases: NJ Division of Youth and Family Services v. C.M. (A-74-08)[/url]
This blog is about the case, but cuts off partway through. It's the only info I've found on google that doesn't require a paid subscription.
mykids1027
I'm not sure I read what everyone else read, but what I got was a father, who had an affair, got a girl pregnant and didn't know about it until the child was 18 months old. When he found out, he refused to take the child due to being married with children of his own and stated in court he did not want the child. Much, much later, when his wife through him out, he then decided he want the child. In the meantime, this child spent the first years of their life with the foster partents and didn't know the father.
Yes, this is the case. And, in this case I believe the decision is accurate in returning the child to biodad. I think he made reasonable efforts to take care of the child once he knew about the child.
The concern I have is that this ruling is being applied to all cases as now the Supreme Court has ruled that bonds between FC and FPs can't be considered as it relates to TPR.
106 page case was there yesterday but is gone now (maybe too many people looking at it..smile).
Biological dad does not want the child when he's married and wants child when wife throws him out?? The child should stay with the family he/she is with.
mnmomma
[url=http://njcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/nj-division-of-youth-and-family.html]NJ Criminal Law- Recent Cases: NJ Division of Youth and Family Services v. C.M. (A-74-08)[/url]
This blog is about the case, but cuts off partway through. It's the only info I've found on google that doesn't require a paid subscription.
I'll keep searching for the right link. I was able to read the op link the day it went up, but now it is broken
oops! sorry!!!!
here's the lawyer's take on it [url=http://njcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/nj-division-of-youth-and-family.html]NJ Criminal Law- Recent Cases: NJ Division of Youth and Family Services v. C.M. (A-74-08)[/url]
from the nj court opinions page
[url]http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/Supreme%2009%20term.pdf[/url]
6-1-10 New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v.
C.M. (A-74-08)
The judgment of the trial court terminating C.M.’s
parental rights is vacated. Defendant C.M. did not
endanger his child’s safety, health or development, he
was willing to provide a safe and stable home for the
child, DYFS failed to make reasonable efforts to
provide services to help C.M. correct the
circumstances that led to his child’s placement
outside the home, the trial court did not consider, in
any substantive manner, alternatives to termination of
parental rights, and there is no basis in the record
to conclude that termination of C.M.’s parental rights
to the child will not do more harm than good. In
these circumstances, severing C.M.’s ties to his son
constituted a gross and unwarranted abuse of the
State’s extraordinary power over its citizens.
you can still get the case- google it- then it looks like the link is broken, but click view HTML- and it will pop up in the google cache. I only had time right now to read the summary- there are multiple dissents. I will read it later on this evening and may have more thoughts. Hopeful phrase at the end of the summary at least about "under these facts" usually that the courts way of somewhat limiting the impact of the case- holding it to the facts.
[url=http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-74-08.opn.html]a-74-08.opn.html[/url]
I hope this works for you guys. 4-3 split decision...can definitely see both sides.
I don't understand the foster care system, but can a parent just say, "I can't parent right now, state, but will you do so until I am ready to?" That seems to be the gist of the situation here. On the other hand, the guy did offer to pay child support, etc...seemingly just in a "bad place" for a while. These are all such tough situations.
okay- I couldn't resist- I read the whole thing.
the first paragraph of the dissent summarizes the case fairly well in my opinion-
"As a result of the Courts decision today, a four-year-oldchild will be torn from the arms of the only family he has ever known and placed in the custody of his biological father, a fifty-eight-year-old man who fathered the child during an extra-marital affair and who was unwilling to assume parental
responsibilities until more than sixteen months after thechildҒs birth. In the fathers absence, the child bonded with foster parents with whom he has lived in a nurturing and lovinghome since he was three months old. In my estimation, no systemof justice which purports to have as its polestar the bestinterests of the child can tolerate the outcome of todayҒsmajority opinion."
Dec '06 father told of paternity
Jan '07 through an interpretor and without counsel, stated he couldn't parent
May '07 father provided alternative housing;which was not accepted.
Aug '07 father finally convinced wife to take in child and offered to parent
Ideal? No. but hardly as described by the state
I stand by my initial comment in this thread - sad for all involved