New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. A.W.
New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 512 A.2d 438 (1986).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This case involved a determination of the factors to be considered in terminating parental rights.
FACTS: Adrian (M) and Robert (F) were 30 and 35 years old respectively at the time of this action. They both have limited abilities and Robert suffers from borderline personality disorder. They had their first child in 1974 and became involved with the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) when it was reported that the child had been abandoned. The child was hospitalized with sever injuries. Adrian claimed that Robert caused the injuries by beating the child.
Adrian moved with the child to her mother’s house but moved back in with Robert soon thereafter. A placement agreement was later signed to allow care of the child by her paternal great grandmother. The couple married in 1977 even though Robert continued to beat Adrian.
In 1978 the couple regained custody of the child. Another daughter was born in 1978 and Adrian once again sought protection from Robert. The two girls were placed in foster care and the older child showed signs of physical injury and severe emotional disorder. Two boys were born and one of them was eventually placed in foster care. The girls were not seen by the parents in over a year and visits to the home showed it to be in complete disarray. A fifth child was born and died of SIDS in 1982. DYFS went to the home and the caseworker found what could only be considered appalling conditions. The two boys showed signs of physical neglect and lack of emotional and developmental growth and were placed under care and custody. Despite these problems DYFS sought to work with the parents to facilitate the return of the entire family.
The couple’s last child was born in 1984 and was placed with DYFS due to health concerns. After a two day trial, the court determined that it was in the best interests of the boys to be returned to the parents, and that the girls might later be returned after further evaluation. The court ruled that the children were the victims of cultural and financial deprivation and that DYFS had made no efforts to return the children. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE: Are financial and economic considerations to be considered when the state must determine termination of parental rights for parents with uneven track records?
RULE OF LAW: No. Financial and economic considerations are not to be considered when the state must determine termination of parental rights for parents with uneven track records. The appropriate standard is to determine what is in the best interests of the child.
HOLDING AND DECISION: For the state to terminate parental rights it must show that the child’s best interests will be substantially prejudiced if the child is permitted to remain with the parent. The court should determine 1) whether the child’s health and development has been or will be seriously impaired by the parental relationship, 2) whether the parents are unable or unwilling to eliminate the harm, 3) whether delaying permanent placement will add to the harm, 4) whether the court has considered alternatives to termination, and 5) whether the termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good.
Some factors of importance are the parent’s efforts to reunite the family, their refusal to engage in therapy, and whether the parents have a history of violence and abuse towards one another. These standards must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
In this case, the primary focus at trial was on the injuries that the children had suffered. These children had little or no vocabulary at all and they could not relate to objects such as blocks and squares. This situation is not caused by lack of financial resources or economic considerations. How poor or how our society makes life tough on certain parties was not the root cause of these children’s problems. These children suffered from a fundamental lack of attention and concern of a caring family. There was no evidence that this family could ever function in the best interests of the children.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.