Opinion ID: 1927603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The court has considered alternatives to termination.

Text: Although this provision is not explicit in the Cope standard, we believe that it is implicit in the overall scale of review of what is in the best interests of the child. The Child Placement Review Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-50 to -65, requires a placement plan for each child placed outside his home    [to] include    [a] statement of the goal for the permanent placement or return home of the child   . N.J.S.A. 30:4C-55. A court should require as part of the case in chief consideration of the plan that was developed for the child. [9] As noted, there is a great tension here because, to the extent that adults  and when we speak of adults we mean courts, social workers, and therapists  delay the permanent decision, they lose sight of the child's concept of time. See J. Goldstein, A. Freud, and A. Solnit, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child 43 (1973) (Three months may not be a long time for an adult decisionmaker. For a young child it may be forever). Still, reaching a decision may take time because New Jersey courts have always respected the primary significance of the family as an intact social unit. See In re Adoption of Children by D., 61 N.J. 89, 93 (1972) (`child's relationship with the parent is of such significance that all doubts are to be resolved against its destruction') (quoting In re Adoption of Children by N., 96 N.J. Super. 415, 425 (App.Div. 1967)). Legislative and judicial policy have dictated that the child's `best interests' be protected `so far as practicable' by providing welfare services to support and maintain the integrity of the biological family as a living unit. New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. B.W., 157 N.J. Super. 301, 308 (Camden County Ct. 1977) (citing N.J.S.A. 30:4C-1 to -65, In re Guardianship of Cope, supra, 106 N.J. Super. 336, and In re Guardianship of B.C.H., 108 N.J. Super. 531 (App.Div. 1970)). This public policy is also expressed in the cooperative federal-state program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, that requires a plan for assuring that the child receives proper care and that services are provided to the parents, child, and foster parents in order to improve the conditions in the parents' home [and] facilitate return of the child to his own home or the permanent placement of the child   . 42 U.S.C.A. § 675(1). In other states, such a requirement has been found in the laws either explicitly or implicitly. See, e.g., People in the Interest of L.L., 715 P. 2d 334, 337-38 (Colo. 1986) (en banc) (failure to comply with appropriate treatment plan must be found before termination); see also In re P.F.J., 174 Ga. App. 47, 48, 329 S.E. 2d 194, 195 (1985) (a thorough investigation of all such possible alternatives is expected before recourse to complete termination of parental rights is sought); In re Brungardt, 211 Neb. 519, 527, 319 N.W. 2d 109, 114 (1982) (court may order a parent to make reasonable efforts to rehabilitate; `failure of those efforts is another independent reason justifying termination of parental rights') (quoting In re Wood, 209 Neb. 18, 23-24, 306 N.W. 2d 151, 154 (1981)). A common alternative is placement with a relative or relatives. [10] When a child is placed with a relative, termination is both unnecessary and unwise unless the relative wishes to adopt the child or is unwilling to provide long-term care. As long as the relative is willing to provide care until the parents can resume custody, the child's needs for stability and attachment are satisfied. In fact, initiating termination might place the relative in the awkward position of having to act against the parents. [Wald, State Intervention on Behalf of Neglected Children: Standards for Removal of Children from Their Homes, Monitoring the Status of Children in Foster Care, and Termination of Parental Rights, 28 Stan.L. Rev. 623, 697 (1976) (footnote omitted).] Some factors that suggest that efforts to reunite the family are no longer reasonable include parents [who] refuse to engage in therapy or other services;    parents [who] cannot benefit from therapy or instruction due to mental retardation or psychosis;    parents [who] threaten workers, child, foster parents, or therapists;    another child in the home is abused or neglected and taken into care;    [and the] child shows serious adverse reaction to contact with parent   . Ducote, Why States Don't Terminate Parental Rights, Justice for Children 3 (Winter 1986). We expect that in most cases the court will be presented with a record that will have adequately canvassed the alternatives to termination of parental rights.