Court Opinion

ID: 9645271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:19:08.533021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:26.411459
License: Public Domain

Conford, P. J. A. D.,
Temporarily Assigned, concurring and dissenting. I concur in the entirety of the court’s opinion except as to the placement of the burden of proof as to the issue of serious harm to the child on plaintiffs. The primary adjudication by the court is the affirmance of the holdings below that plaintiffs were wrongfully deprived of their child by the defendant agency and that they have a prima facie right to restoration of the child. It should therefore be for the agency and the prospective adoptive parents to bear the burden of proof of the probability of serious harm to the child if now transferred to the natural parents.
The factor of the time period during which the child has been with the present custodians is an element which the fact-finder will undoubtedly weigh in arriving at his fact finding; but it is irrelevant to the issue as to where the burden of proof should lie.
Justice Pashman joins in this opinion.
For remandment — Chief Justice Hughes and Justices Mountain, Sullivan, Clifford and Schrbiber — 5.
Concurring and dissenting — Justice Pashman and Judge Confoed — 2.