Court Opinion

ID: 9693733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:58:36.250001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:49.781881
License: Public Domain

CLIFFORD, J.,
concurring in judgment.
My concerns are expressed in my concurrence in In re Guardianship of J.C., J.C., and Minors, 129 N.J. 1, 608 *47A.2d 1312 (1992) (J.C.), also decided today. Applying to this case the principles relied on in J. C., I agree with the Court that the trial court followed the import of the statutory scheme by properly disregarding evidence of bonding that occurred after the Division of Youth & Family Services (DYFS) had improperly refused visitation until B.F. submitted to psychological testing. At that time, DYFS had no clear and convincing evidence, as required under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(d), that B.F. had abandoned K.L.F. or that termination of parental rights would be in the child’s best interests under both N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(c) and New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A. W, 103 N.J. 591, 512 A.2d 438 (1986).
More specifically: (1) as a matter of law, DYFS’s efforts at reunification during the one-year period preceding its decision to forego reunification plans fell short of the diligent-efforts standard of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(d), and (2) none of the evidence below indicated that the child had suffered damage from her non-existent relationship with B.F., see J. C., supra, 129 N.J. at 29-30, 608 A.2d 1312 (Clifford, J., concurring). Thus, because the psychological bonding between K.L.F. and her pre-adoptive family during the period following DYFS’s refusal to allow visitation resulted from an improper denial of visitation rights, consideration of that bonding by the trial court would similarly have been improper.
I note as well that the agency failed to demonstrate compliance with the Child Placement Review Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-50 to -65, including those provisions requiring periodic review of agency strategy. See N.J.S.A. 30:40-58.1. Had DYFS properly undertaken that review in this case, the Family Part might have thwarted the bonding that occurred after an unjustified abandonment of the statutory goal of reunification.
For affirmance and remandment — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.
Opposed — None.