Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.N.H., A MINOR
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2004-11-18
Citations: 182 N.J. 29
Docket Number: 
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.N.H., A MINOR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 182
Pages: 29–32

Head Matter:
860 A.2d 923
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.N.H., A MINOR.
Argued April 29, 2002 — Remanded June 26, 2002 — Reargued September 27, 2004
Decided November 18, 2004.
Arlene Gilbert Groch argued the cause for appellant C.H.G.
Sonia G. Wagner, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Law Guardian, argued the cause for respondent J.N.H., (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney).
James P. Gentile, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services {Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lisa J. Godfrey, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In 1998, the trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of C.H.G. over her son, J.N.H., as a result of her unremitting substance abuse. In 2001, C.H.G., who had by then completely transformed her life, moved for vacation of the 1998 order under R. 4:50-l(e) and (f). The trial court denied the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed.
We granted C.H.G.'s petition for certification and, in an opinion that details the history of the ease, In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440, 799 A.2d 518 (2002), remanded the matter to the trial court for a full hearing to determine whether the judgment terminating C.H.G.'s parental rights "continues to be a just and equitable outcome." Id. at 479, 799 A.2d 518. Among our concerns were evidence of C.H.G.'s present fitness as a parent; a suggestion that J.N.H. was responding negatively to the termination of contact with C.H.G.; the absence of a recent psychological evaluation of J.N.H.; and the foster family's expressed intent to terminate any contact between C.H.G. and J.N.H. upon adoption.
The trial court did as we instructed, and after a hearing that included updated bonding and psychological evaluations of all parties, issued a thorough and thoughtful opinion concluding that J.N.H.'s need for permanency and his identification with his foster parents as his psychological family warranted termination of the parental rights of C.H.G., notwithstanding her present ability to be a fit parent. The expert and fact testimony in the record fully supports that conclusion and we affirm.
In ruling, the trial court recognized that all of the experts in the case had concluded that continued contact between J.N.H. and C.H.G. was necessary to foster the child's best interests. The court refused to order such visitation, however, in light of the foster parents' agreement voluntarily to continue contact between J.N.H. and C.H.G., and because it viewed an order of post-adoption visitation to be beyond its power under this Court's decision in In the Matter of the Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 736 A.2d 1246 (1999). C.H.G. challenges the trial court's conclusion regarding visitation.
We decline to address the thorny issue of mandatory post-adoption visitation at this point. That issue is not ripe for review or adjudication because none of the parties in their briefs argued that this Court should revisit KH.O. and allow for such court-ordered visitation. We take the foster parents at their word and expect that, as they have promised, they will provide J.N.H. such opportunities to visit with C.H.G. and his natural siblings as are necessary to his continued welfare and happiness.
Affirmed.