In New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. J.C. (A-8-23/088071) (Decided May 29, 2024), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the family court does not have the authority under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12 to dismiss a Title 30 action — and with it, a parent’s appointed counsel — but continue restraints on a parent’s conduct.
If the family court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to continue the restraints on a parent’s conduct, it must keep the case open to facilitate judicial oversight of the Division’s continued involvement, while safeguarding a parent’s right to counsel.
Facts of New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. J.C.
As set forth in the opinion, the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the Division) became involved with J.C. (Jan) and her family in July 2018, when a hospital employee notified the Division that Jan had been involuntarily hospitalized for manic and paranoid behavior. The Division implemented a safety plan that mandated temporary supervision of Jan’s contact with her children. Later, the Division lifted the plan.
Following a referral in December 2019, when Jan admitted that she had stopped seeing her therapist and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features, the Division reinstituted the safety plan and filed a complaint under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12, which authorizes the Division to seek a temporary court order granting it care and supervision of a child, and the provision of services to parents.
A summary hearing is required within six months to review the order granting the Division care and supervision, which may be extended by the court if it is in the child’s best interests. At these State- initiated proceedings, parents are entitled to the assistance of counsel as a matter of due process.
The Family Part granted the Division care and supervision of the children. In March 2021, the Law Guardian sought to dismiss the Title 30 action because of Jan’s lack of cooperation with the Division. The court discontinued the Division’s care and supervision of the children but dismissed the litigation with restraints, deeming it “irresponsible” to allow Jan to have unsupervised contact with the children, considering her mental health issues. The Appellate Division affirmed
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. J.C.
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed. “We hold that the family court does not have the authority under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12 to dismiss a Title 30 action — and with it, a parent’s appointed counsel — but continue restraints on a parent’s conduct. If the family court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to continue the restraints on a parent’s conduct, it must keep the case open to facilitate judicial oversight of the Division’s continued involvement, while safeguarding a parent’s right to counsel.”
In its opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the multi-step process that the Division must follow to properly exercise its authority under Title 30. In this case, the Court found that the order would result in the Division’s continued involvement with the family without the requisite judicial oversight. “Such an action is inconsistent with the express provisions of N.J.S.A. 30:4C- 12,” according to the Court.
“A case should be dismissed only when the court determines that neither services nor supervision are required to ensure the child’s health and safety,” the Court explained. “Thus, if the court finds that the Division established by a preponderance of the evidence that restraints on a parent’s contact with her children is in their best interests, the case should not be dismissed.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court went on to find that when a Title 30 action is terminated, as was the case here, so too is the right to the appointment of counsel. “Therefore, if a case is dismissed with continuing restraints, a parent with appointed counsel, like Jan, who seeks review in the future would not be entitled to the assistance of counsel to begin that process, unless the parent has the means to hire private counsel to do so,” the Court wrote. “Indeed, the Family Part’s order in this case requires Jan to initiate review of the restraints, but the Office of the Public Defender confirmed that they no longer represented Jan following dismissal of the action. We find this result incompatible with due process and a parent’s right to counsel in Title 30 proceedings.”
Finally, the Court recognized that periodic in- person visits to an intact family by a Division representative are inherently disruptive to the family in general and the children in particular. It, therefore, recommended that N.J.A.C. 3A:12-2.6 should be amended to provide an exception to regular weekly or monthly visitation where the Division contends, and the family court finds, that the provision of services by the Division is not required.