Good morning,
There are five relevant NJ decisions are attached. Three of these NJ decisions (in W.L., A.J. and T.S.), courts vacated or reversed TPRs based on changed circumstances. All of those decisions came on direct appeals. Two are summary decisions of the NJ Supreme Court granting petitions for certification (the NJ equivalent of certiorari) and one is an opinion from our intermediate appellate court
recognizing that "sometimes time changes everything." In one other case, JNH, resulting in two decisions (one in 2002 and one in 2004), the NJ Supreme Court held that our court rules also recognized a post-judgment motion to alter a TPR decision, though establishing a high standard to do so.
Jey Rajaraman
Chief Counsel, Family Representation Project
(p): 732-529-8376
(f):732-572-0066
www.lsnj.org <http:
www.lsnj.org/="">www.lsnjlaw.org <http:
www.lsnjlaw.org/=""> <http:
www.lsnj.org/=""> <http:
www.facebook.com/pages/legal-services-of-new-jersey/319622317235="">Like us on Facebook <http:
www.facebook.com/pages/legal-services-of-new-jersey/319622317235="">Hágase fan nuestro en Facebook <http:
www.facebook.com/pages/legal-services-of-new-jersey/319622317235#!/pages/los-servicios-legales-de-nueva-jersey/197537620312636=""> <https: twitter.com/lsnj="">
Follow us on Twitter <https: twitter.com/lsnj="">
Síganos en Twitter <https: twitter.com/lsnjee="">
<http:
www.youtube.com/user/legalservicesnj="">Watch us on YouTube <http:
www.youtube.com/user/legalservicesnj="">Véanos en YouTube <http:
www.youtube.com/playlist?list="PLFB38A4A8BD182CD5">The information contained in this e-mail is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly unauthorized. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by e-mail and delete this message together with any attachments. Your cooperation is appreciated.
Original Message------
Dad signs a voluntary termination of his parental rights, clearing the way for his parents to adopt his daughter.
Mom will not sign. While she's had issues, she never abused the child and loves her. She fights it, but has her parental rights terminated. Appellate Division affirmed. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9489825298591221010 . While Mom disputes many of the facts recited. For instance, Mom ("Alice") says her only non-appearance for court was a result of transportation issues that she could prove were legitimate, that the positive parts of her her psych reports were omitted, and that her interactions with her daughter ("Laura") during the evaluation were massively incorrect -- that Laura ran to her, didn't want to leave, and that the two of them interacted a lot differently (better) than reported. Nonetheless, I understand she's pretty much "stuck" with the facts as found and affirmed by the App Div.
Here's the issue -- Dad is essentially living with his parents at this point. His Facebook has pictures of him with the child. Mom is no longer Laura's mother legally. No rights of any kind. To say it's hurting mom would be a vast understatement. She spoke to dad at one point, who delighted in telling her "you're no longer Laura's mother."
Is there any such thing as un-doing a TPR adjudication? If mom had contact, I could see a "third party visitation" action, but she's been cut off from her. Mom is not looking to regain custody, but she wants to see her daughter. If it could be proved that the TPR and contested adoption was dad and his parents making an end-run around a custody hearing (Rule 4:50-1)? Is there any hope to give "Alice"?
---------------------------------------
David Perry Davis, Esq.
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
---------------------------------------
</http:></http:></http:></https:></https:></https:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:></http:>