The New Jersey Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in and is considering a case likely to revise termination of parental rights and adoption cases in the Garden State. The case,  In the Matter of the Adoption of a Child by J.E.V. and D.G.V., involves a woman who found herself unable to provide financially for her special needs toddler. She sought help from a private adoption agency in 2012.  A wealthier family took the child into foster care and provided for her needs. The biological mother was unable to have regular visits with the child due to her own dire circumstances. At the time, she did not have legal representation.  The foster family then began termination of rights and adoption proceedings.

The mother has since returned to court, asking a judge to reconsider her circumstances and reinstate her full parental rights. The trial court said no, and the Appellate Division reversed for more findings.  Regardless of the outcome of this specific case, it is not an isolated incident. The State currently allows indigent mothers to reconsider their choice to pursue adoption when and if their circumstances have changed. In addition, a mother who appears before a judge to ask for reconsideration has the right to representation. In this case, the mother objected to the foster family adopting her child, and was at no point advised that she had a right to counsel. The Appellate Division ordered a new trial and interim visitation rights for the birth mother.

“After the elimination of the death penalty, we can think of no legal consequence of greater magnitude than the termination of parental rights,” wrote the Appellate Division.

There are a few issues involved in this case, all of which are nuanced and complex. First, the indigent mother sought help in caring for her child. While the Agency’s solution was to place the child in a loving foster home, the Agency seems to have overstepped by encouraging the foster family to adopt the child and not facilitate the mother’s visitation.

Next, the mother was unaware of her right to a State-appointed lawyer. The appellate court added to the ruling that all parents who challenge adoption due to poverty have a right to state-appointed counsel. Now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to put its imprint on the question.

Finally, there is the question of who determines the adequacy of parenting. While parents have an obligation to provide for the basic needs of their children — including emotional and material needs — there is no law that says a parent is not allowed to be indigent. In this case, the mother had no history of drug or alcohol use, no abusive behavior, and no other glaring issues, except for poverty. Poverty, alone, is not a basis for termination of parental rights and adoption over a natural parent’s protest.  The fact that another family may provide for a biological parent’s child better than that parent is not legally significant, nor should it be.

If you are struggling with child custody or parenting time issues, or know someone who is, please contact our experienced family law attorneys at Hanan M. Isaacs, P.C.  We want the best outcome for your family, your children, and you. Call 609-683-7400 or contact us to schedule a near-term and reduced fee initial consultation at our Central Jersey offices in Kingston.  You will be glad you did.