NJ & CT News

Foster Parents Lack
Standing to Intervene in Best-Interests Hearing

New Jersey's Appellate Division recently concluded, in Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.P. and O.B., A-4087-10, that foster parents who want to adopt a child they have been caring for have no legal standing to participate in a best-interests hearing. The case involved a two-year-old child who had been taken from her biological mother shortly after birth with illicit drugs in her system. The child's aunt was originally considered ineligible to adopt, but the Division of Youth and Family Services later changed its position and decided the child's best interests would be served by allowing the aunt to adopt. The foster parents (known as “resource parents”), who had been caring for the child for two years, moved to intervene and to submit psychologists' reports attesting to the harm the child would suffer if she were moved from her habitual home environment. Hudson County Superior Court Judge Margaret Foti refused to allow the resource parents to intervene, although she did allow them to make a statement expressing their wishes. On appeal, the court found that N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.19a, and Rule 5:12-4(i) provide only that foster parents should be allowed to tell the judge their wishes during the best-interests hearing; nowhere is there an indication of a right to intervene. Before becoming resource parents, the foster parents had been required to sign a contract in which they agreed that they would not unilaterally make long-term decisions about the child's future, and that they would not have any special rights to seek adoption by reason of the fact that they had cared for the child. Thus, they had been put on notice of their lack of standing. Concluding that although the foster parents' wish to adopt was “admirable,” this “altruistic objective does not rise to a separate cognizable legal interest for which resource parent intervention must be allowed.”

CONNECTICUT

A Guardian ad Litem Is Neutral

The Appellate Court of Connecticut, in Brown v. Brown, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 524 (11/8/11), affirmed a judgment modifying a visitation order even though the mother asserted that the guardian ad litem was not in fact “neutral” and that her testimony should not have been given greater weight than the mother's. In confirming the ruling, the appeals court opined that the trial court was “well within its discretion to credit the testimony of the guardian ad litem, who was not a parent and was appointed specifically for the reason that she was disinterested so that she could make recommendations to the court regarding the best interests of the children, and the guardian ad litem's role was to provide her recommendation as a neutral party for the court to consider with all of the other evidence before it.” The Appellate Court of Connecticut also concluded that there was no error in the trial court's decision to go against the children's stated preferences by ordering visitation every other week with the father; the record showed that the children's wishes were considered, but that the court overrode them in favor of what it considered to be in the children's best interests.

NEW JERSEY

Committee Backs Law
Opening Door to Civil Suits Against Stalkers

New Jersey's Assembly Judiciary Committee made a unanimous recommendation Nov. 21, 2011, that a law be passed creating a civil cause of action for stalking victims. If passed, the bill (A-4086) would permit victims to sue for actual and punitive damages, along with costs and attorney fees, even if the stalker is not criminally charged.

Foster Parents Lack
Standing to Intervene in Best-Interests Hearing

New Jersey's Appellate Division recently concluded, in Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.P. and O.B., A-4087-10, that foster parents who want to adopt a child they have been caring for have no legal standing to participate in a best-interests hearing. The case involved a two-year-old child who had been taken from her biological mother shortly after birth with illicit drugs in her system. The child's aunt was originally considered ineligible to adopt, but the Division of Youth and Family Services later changed its position and decided the child's best interests would be served by allowing the aunt to adopt. The foster parents (known as “resource parents”), who had been caring for the child for two years, moved to intervene and to submit psychologists' reports attesting to the harm the child would suffer if she were moved from her habitual home environment. Hudson County Superior Court Judge Margaret Foti refused to allow the resource parents to intervene, although she did allow them to make a statement expressing their wishes. On appeal, the court found that N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.19a, and Rule 5:12-4(i) provide only that foster parents should be allowed to tell the judge their wishes during the best-interests hearing; nowhere is there an indication of a right to intervene. Before becoming resource parents, the foster parents had been required to sign a contract in which they agreed that they would not unilaterally make long-term decisions about the child's future, and that they would not have any special rights to seek adoption by reason of the fact that they had cared for the child. Thus, they had been put on notice of their lack of standing. Concluding that although the foster parents' wish to adopt was “admirable,” this “altruistic objective does not rise to a separate cognizable legal interest for which resource parent intervention must be allowed.”

CONNECTICUT

A Guardian ad Litem Is Neutral

The Appellate Court of Connecticut, in Brown v. Brown, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 524 (11/8/11), affirmed a judgment modifying a visitation order even though the mother asserted that the guardian ad litem was not in fact “neutral” and that her testimony should not have been given greater weight than the mother's. In confirming the ruling, the appeals court opined that the trial court was “well within its discretion to credit the testimony of the guardian ad litem, who was not a parent and was appointed specifically for the reason that she was disinterested so that she could make recommendations to the court regarding the best interests of the children, and the guardian ad litem's role was to provide her recommendation as a neutral party for the court to consider with all of the other evidence before it.” The Appellate Court of Connecticut also concluded that there was no error in the trial court's decision to go against the children's stated preferences by ordering visitation every other week with the father; the record showed that the children's wishes were considered, but that the court overrode them in favor of what it considered to be in the children's best interests.