Important Ruling By New Jersey Supreme Court

I have only had time to briefly skim the report, so I don't know the specifics of this case and can't answer as to whether I think this decision is fair in regards to the facts of this case, but in general, I feel that it is wrong not to consider the bonding of the child in permanency decisions. My baby has been with me since birth. She is now nearly 6 months old. She has never even met her birth mother outside of the womb, so I am the only mother she knows. I believe even at this young age, it would be hard for her if she were to be returned to her birth mother. Even so, 6 months isn't a long time and I do agree that had her birth mother been able to really straighten out her life, she should have gotten her back. But what about a year from now? Or two? Or three? At what point does my daughter's right to permanency supersede her birth mother's right to be her mother? It's not about the foster family wanting to adopt, it's about the child's right to form bonds that won't be broken. It's not their fault that this was denied them in their birth families. It shouldn't be denied them in their long-term foster families, as well. As I said previously, I don't know the specifics of this case, but if I read correctly in my quick skim, this child was born and placed in foster care in January 2005 and is now over 5 years old. Assuming he has been with the same foster family all this time, what a tragedy for him that he is now going to be torn away from the only family he knows. After all, I'm sure no one ever told him his life was only temporary.