New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. A.W.,
512 A.2d 438 (1986)



Procedure:Plaintiff New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division (New Jersey), which affirmed the trial court's denial of plaintiff's actions to terminate the parental rights of defendant parents in their five children. The court granted certification and consolidated the appeals.

Facts: The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (P) petitioned the court to terminate the parental rights of A. W. (D). P had been involved with D's family since 1975. By the time of this proceeding, all five children were in foster care. The court found it was in the best interests of the three boys that they be returned to the home. The court deferred its decision regarding the girls pending evaluation of their relationship with their new foster mother, although the court indicated its belief that they should be returned to the natural parents. The court found the parents and children were victims of cultural and financial deprivation and P had made no attempt to keep the family unit integral. P apppealed.

Issue: Whether or not financial and economic considerations to be considered when the state must determine termination of parental rights for parents with uneven track records?

Rule: In a proceeding to terminate parental rights, trial court should determine whether child's health and development have been or will be seriously impaired by parental relationship; parents are unable or unwilling to eliminate harm and delay of permanent placement will add to the harm; there are alternatives to termination; and termination of parental rights will do more harm than good.

Holding: Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded.
The trial court determined that the children should be returned to their natural parents but stayed its decision pending appeal. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed in an unreported opinion. Following grant of petition for certification, the Supreme Court, held that trial court, in refusing to terminate parental rights, incorrectly emphasized economic and social disadvantages of parents as factors which excused or outweighed in significance essentially uncontradicted showing of serious harm suffered by children as result of lack of nuturing care in the home.

Analysis:The interest of parents in rearing their children is fundamental and constitutionally protected, but not absolute. The state is not without constitutional control over parental discretion in dealing with children when their physical or mental health is jeopardized.