Summary
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a Family Part judge may determine that a child’s best interests are served by placement with a relative who is not licensed as a resource family parent. The court held that the Family Part could not compel resource-family-parent payments to an unlicensed relative, but could require the Division to provide other statutorily authorized assistance. It also clarified that a temporary or final domestic-violence restraining order may be considered in placement and licensing decisions but does not automatically disqualify a potential resource family parent.
Holdings
- The Family Part has authority to determine that a child's best interests are served by placement with a relative who is not licensed as a resource family parent under the Resource Family Parent Licensing Act.
- The Family Part may not compel the Division to pay an unlicensed relative the financial assistance specifically available to a resource family parent licensed under the Act.
- A Family Part judge may require the Division to pay statutorily authorized assistance to unlicensed persons caring for a foster child.
- Entry of a temporary or final domestic-violence restraining order may be considered as a factor in placement review but does not automatically disqualify a potential resource family parent from licensure under the Act.
- The Appellate Division's remand for further placement review was moot because the Division returned the child to his mother's care and custody.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Part had authority to place a child under the Division's care and supervision with a relative who was not licensed as a resource family parent under the Resource Family Parent Licensing Act.
- Whether the Family Part could compel the Division to provide an unlicensed relative with the financial assistance available to a licensed resource family parent under the Act.
- Whether a temporary or final domestic-violence restraining order automatically disqualified a potential resource family parent from licensure under the Act.
- Whether the Appellate Division's remand for further placement review remained justiciable after the child was returned to his mother.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (3)
- N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. K.N., 435 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 2014)(followed in part; modified)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 474 (2011)(followed)
- Crespo v. Crespo, 408 N.J. Super. 25, 38-40 (App. Div. 2009), aff'd o.b., 201 N.J. 207 (2010)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…