In re D.C.
4 A.3d 1004, 2010 N.J. LEXIS 948, 203 N.J. 545 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When children are placed in foster care, there is a statutory presumption in favor of sibling visitation which the state must overcome to deny it. After adoption, a court may only compel sibling visitation over the adoptive parents' objection if the petitioning sibling proves by a preponderance of the evidence that denying visitation would cause harm to the child.
Facts:
- In June 2005, Nina Carson gave birth to twin daughters, Dana and Donna, who had older siblings named Nellie Jackson and Hugo.
- In August 2005, the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) removed the three-month-old twins and their brother Hugo from Carson's home due to abuse allegations.
- The twins were placed in a foster home, while Hugo was placed in a group home.
- Nellie Jackson, the adult sister, sought custody of her siblings and was initially approved as a 'viable resource' by a Virginia social services agency.
- In July 2007, Nellie and Hugo had one six-hour visit with the twins, which was reported to be positive and affectionate.
- DYFS later ruled Nellie out as a placement option for the twins due to concerns about her finances and her supervision of Hugo, and subsequently terminated all sibling visitation in March 2008.
- The twins' foster mother, who was approved to adopt them, initially agreed to visitation but later became 'no longer willing to facilitate visits,' leading to a complete cessation of contact.
Procedural Posture:
- Nellie Jackson filed an action in the New Jersey Superior Court (trial court) seeking custody of her twin sisters, or alternatively, reestablishment of visitation.
- The trial judge denied custody but permitted visitation to continue at the discretion of the foster mother.
- After the foster mother stopped the visits, Nellie filed a motion to enforce the visitation order.
- The trial judge declined to compel the foster mother to allow visits, again leaving it to her discretion.
- Nellie Jackson, as appellant, appealed the trial judge's order to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
- A majority of the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision, with one judge dissenting.
- Nellie Jackson petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification on the visitation issue, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have the authority to compel visitation between siblings when one sibling is in foster care and subsequently adopted by a non-relative, and if so, what legal standard applies during the pre-adoption and post-adoption periods?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Long
Yes, a court has the authority to compel sibling visitation, but the legal standard differs significantly between the pre-adoption and post-adoption periods. Before an adoption is finalized, the Child Placement Bill of Rights Act creates a presumption in favor of regular sibling visitation, and the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) bears the burden of proving that such contact is contrary to the child's welfare. After an adoption, adoptive parents possess the same fundamental right to parental autonomy as biological parents; therefore, a court may only intervene and compel visitation under its parens patriae jurisdiction if the petitioning sibling proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the child would suffer harm if visitation were denied. The court reasoned that the Child Placement Bill of Rights Act imposes an affirmative obligation on DYFS to facilitate sibling contact throughout the entire placement period, up until adoption. The disinclination of a foster parent is not a sufficient reason to overcome this presumption. For the post-adoption period, the court synthesized its prior rulings in cases like Moriarty v. Bradt and In re Adoption of a Child by W.P., concluding that while adoptive families are protected from state interference based on a mere 'best interests' standard, their autonomy is not absolute. The state's compelling interest in preventing harm to a child justifies overriding parental decisions, thus establishing the 'avoidance of harm' standard as the appropriate test for post-adoption sibling visitation petitions.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical two-tiered framework for sibling visitation rights that balances statutory protections for children in state care with the constitutional rights of adoptive families. By creating a strong presumption for pre-adoption visitation, the decision holds child welfare agencies accountable for maintaining sibling bonds, a key factor in the emotional stability of foster children. More significantly, by extending the 'avoidance of harm' standard to post-adoption sibling visitation, the court carves out a specific judicial remedy that respects parental autonomy while also recognizing that severing profound sibling relationships can be a form of harm that warrants state intervention. This precedent provides a pathway for siblings to maintain contact after adoption, but sets a high evidentiary bar, ensuring that the privacy and integrity of the new adoptive family unit are not lightly disturbed.
