Court Opinion

ID: 9763298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:40:21.552844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:40.572168
License: Public Domain

*32Justice LONG
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I am in full accord with the majority’s affirmance of the judgment terminating C.H.G.’s parental rights over J.N.H. I am, however, not as sanguine as my colleagues regarding whether the foster parents will account for their stewardship and continue to promote visitation between J.N.H. and his mother. For that reason, and to forestall further acrimonious legal proceedings, I would rule now in favor of enforceable post-adoption visitation between C.H.G. and J.N.H. based upon the “exceptional circumstances” doctrine that we recently recognized as permitting the exercise of our parens patriae jurisdiction to protect a child. See V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200, 219, 748 A.2d 539 (2000)(holding psychological parenthood as one example of exceptional circumstances warranting judicial award of custody or visitation to third party).
Here every shred of evidence adduced at trial supported the conclusion that a continuation of the long-standing visitation between C.H.G. and J.N.H. is essential to avoid serious harm to J.N.H. That said, an enforceable order of visitation should be entered now to protect J.N.H. and to ensure that the termination of C.H.G.’s parental rights will not, in the long run, “do more harm than good.” N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1. I have absolutely no difficulty denominating the unique circumstances before us as “exceptional”, compelling judicial intervention.
For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ, and Justices LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO — 6.
For Concurrence in part; Dissent in part — Justice LONG — 1.