Link for opinion:
P.L.J. and K.L.W. the mother and father of K.K.W. appeal separately from a judgment terminating their respective parental rights. They are arguing that the Division of Youth and Family Services failed to meets its obligation to initiate a search for relatives who may be willing and able to provide the care and support required by the child.
K.K.W. was born in late March 2008. She was born premature and her mom tested positive for cocaine and the baby required intensive care. Her mother had not had prenatal care and told the hospital staff about her drug use and history of depression. She told them that she was homeless and didn’t have any furniture that she needed for the baby or any other supplies. She admitted that she was neglecting the baby.
The mother was 35 when she gave birth and this was not her first child or her first encounter with the Division of Youth and Family Services. She voluntarily transferred custody of her first four children to their maternal grandparents. When K.K.W. was born P.L.J.’s other kids had been living with their grandparents for about 3 years. P.L.J. asked the Division not to contact her parents because they did not know about her drug use. Instead she wanted them to contact the baby’s father K.L.W.
The father was about 40 years old and was not living with the mother. The caseworker from the Division talked to the father but he said he was a long distance truck driver and could not take care of the baby. He agreed to let the caseworker assess his home and said he would speak with family members that could assist him. The baby has never been in custody of a parent or relative. On April 3, 2008 the Division filed an order to show cause and a complaint alleging abuse and neglect and obtained custody of K.K.W. The baby did not go through withdrawals but did have feeding problems and other medical issues. The baby was kept in the hospital until May 2008. When she was discharged she was placed with St. Clare’s Home for Children, and agency that addresses the needs of medically fragile children. She stayed there until 2008.
The baby was placed with a foster family. The division should have contacted the maternal grandparents that were taking care of K.K.W.’s siblings. In this case the division’s failure to meet its obligation had ramifications relevant to K.K.W.’s best interests. The Division should not proceed when it has not met its obligation to assess a relative, especially one that is caring for the child’s siblings.
The court reversed and remand for further proceedings to permit the judge to reconsider termination with additional information pertinent to his findings on the second and fourth prongs of the statutory standard. The judge continued visitation during the pendency of this appeal.
Labels for the post: child, custody, New Jersey
No comments:
Post a Comment