Opinion ID: 2382887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Need for Continuity of Care.

Text: By enumerating the need for continuity of care as a consideration in determining the best interest of a child, the legislature has recognized the importance, to a child, of stability and permanence. See also Quilloin, supra, 434 U.S. at 255, 98 S.Ct. at 554-56. The trial court found in this regard that [L.W.] is fortunate in having been placed in foster care with petitioners, who are exceptionally qualified to address all of her needs, based on prior experience with other children, including their hyperactive son and their asthmatic older daughter. L.W. is doubly fortunate that petitioners wish to adopt her and provide her with continuity of care. This finding is amply supported by the testimony of the social workers and expert witnesses. There is an especially stark contrast between the promise of stability in the adoptive parents' home and the prospect of change and uncertainty if L.W. were placed in the custody of her biological father. Dr. Kenneth Feigenbaum, a clinical psychologist who testified as an expert on the biological father's behalf, acknowledged that the father suffers from significant personality disorders which would make it difficult for him to care for a child with L.W.'s needs. Dr. Feigenbaum expressed his feeling that the disabilities that I see do not disbar him from being an adequate parent given her severe problems, but the hedge is I'd like to try it out. He suggested in effect that the petition for adoption be denied without prejudice, that L.W. be placed in the biological father's custody, and that the adoptive parents file a new petition if this arrangement did not work out. He so proposed notwithstanding his recognition that [t]he general rule is the less bouncing around the better. As Judge Zeldon observed in her written decision, Dr. Feigenbaum's proposal demonstrates that even he questions whether F.W. can provide the continuity of care required for this special needs child. By contrast, Dr. Feigenbaum, who visited the home of the R. family, expressed no doubt about the ability of petitioners to continue to provide L.W. with continuity of care. We agree with the judge. Given L.W.'s needs and her father's limitations, we think the kind of experiment contemplated by Dr. Feigenbaum would not only bounce [L.W.] around, and thus disrupt the continuity of her care, but also generate altogether unacceptable risks to her psychological (and perhaps physical) health and welfare. [16]