In the Matter of E.M.B

12 Citing cases

  1. N.J. Div. of Youth v. D.P.

    422 N.J. Super. 583 (App. Div. 2011)   Cited 19 times
    Concluding resource parents, statutorily-barred from becoming parties to a Title Nine proceeding, lacked "standing to intervene"

    Id. at 467–68, 649 A.2d 1310 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In In re E.M.B., 348 N.J.Super. 31, 33, 791 A.2d 256 (App.Div.2002), we reviewed a dispute between the Division, the maternal grandparents, and the child placement review board (CPRB), “concerning the goal of the permanency placement plan for children whose birth parents' parental rights have been terminated.” The Division proposed foster parent adoption rather than adoption by the grandparents.

  2. In re T.E.

    435 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 2014)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    We have in the past discussed the tension between the Division's statutory and regulatory authority, and the court's inherent parens patriae jurisdiction over children who are wards of the court pursuant to Title 30. In In re E.M.B., 348 N.J.Super. 31, 32–33, 791 A.2d 256 (App.Div.2001), we reviewed orders from the Family Part that directed the Division to develop a new placement plan subsequent to a termination of parental rights. The dispute there centered on whether the Division's permanency plan—foster parent adoption—or an alternative plan—adoption by the maternal grandparents—better served the child's best interests.

  3. In the Matter of C.R

    364 N.J. Super. 263 (App. Div. 2003)   Cited 14 times
    Recognizing the court's jurisdiction to resolve disputes “between competing [permanency] plans that are reasonably plausible”

    Id. at 489-90, 681 A.2d 668. In In Re E.M.B., 348 N.J. Super. 31 (App.Div. 2002), however, where the efficacy of DYFS's proposed permanency plan was at issue, this court reached a contrary result. There, as here, all parties agreed that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests, but a dispute arose regarding which adoptive home would serve the children's best interests. DYFS's permanency plan proposed foster parent adoption.Id. at 37.

  4. State v. S.A.

    388 N.J. Super. 324 (Ch. Div. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    In reviewing the child's placement, the court is required to determine whether the "placement ensures the safety and health and serves the best interests of the child." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-51; In re E.M.B., 348 N.J.Super. 31, 52, 791 A.2d 256 (App.Div. 2002). Accordingly, "`the best interests' of the child is the polestar in the implementation of a placement plan."

  5. N.J.D.Y.F.S. v. M.F. M.M

    357 N.J. Super. 515 (App. Div. 2003)   Cited 70 times
    Stating that although it is required that the Division investigate relative placement in the best interests of the child, no "presumption of relative placement" exists

    It is well established that it is the Division's policy to place children with relatives whenever possible. State, Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. K.F., 353 N.J. Super. 623, 636 (App.Div. 2002); In re E.M.B., 348 N.J. Super. 31, 34 (App.Div. 2002). To advance this goal "the court must have a broad discretion to evaluate and assess a relative's ability to care for children."

  6. K.J. ex Rel. Lowry v. Division of Youth Fam

    363 F. Supp. 2d 728 (D.N.J. 2005)   Cited 33 times
    Finding DYFS is not a place of public accommodation

    See also Guardianship of K.H.O., 308 N.J. Super. 432, 442 (App.Div. 1998) (stating that children in foster care are entitled to contact with siblings and foster parents under the Child Placement Bill of Rights Act). Cf. In re E.M.B., 348 N.J. Super. 31 (App.Div. 2002) ( citing N.J. STAT. ANN. § 30:4C-50) (finding that the intent of the Child Placement Review Act is to provide periodic review of each child in placement in order to establish either permanent placement or return home). In D.J.M., the Chancery Division also discusses the purpose behind the later enactment of the New Jersey Adoption and Safe Families Act (the "A.S.F.A.") in order to advance the legislature's intent to place the safety of children first in guardianship proceedings.

  7. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. R.W.

    No. A-3037-19 (App. Div. Mar. 3, 2022)

    Further, the Division's policy is "to place, whenever possible, children with relatives when those children are removed from the custody of their parents." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. K.F., 353 N.J.Super. 623, 636 (App. Div. 2002) (citing In re E.M.B., 348 N.J.Super. 31, 34 (App. Div. 2001)). The Division cannot ignore relatives "based upon an arbitrary, preordained preference for the foster placement" and "must perform a reasonable investigation of . . . relatives that is fair, but also sensitive to the passage of time and the child's critical need for finality and permanency."

  8. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. M.E.L.-G.

    No. A-4452-19 (App. Div. Dec. 22, 2021)

    In re E.M.B., 348 N.J.Super. 31, 34 (App. Div. 2002) (noting the Division's "policy to place children with relatives when possible"). However, N.J. S.A. 30:4C-12.1(b) grants the Division the authority to "rule out" relatives or friends whom the agency determines are unable or unwilling to assume care for the child or with respect to whom placement would not be in the child's best interest.

  9. In re J.C.

    DOCKET NO. A-3353-12T3 (App. Div. Aug. 19, 2013)

    Div. 2002); see also N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.L.W., 419 N.J. Super. 568, 579 (App. Div. 2011); In re E.M.B., 348 N.J. Super. 31, 34 (App. Div. 2002). And it is also well-established that foster care is only designed as a "temporary palliative to care for children whose parents are unable to do so for one or more reasons."

  10. In re J.C.

    432 N.J. Super. 224 (App. Div. 2013)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that although the grandparents sought custody of one grandchild under an FD docket, the court was required to perform a bonding evaluation considering the best interests of the child in light of an ongoing FN investigation

    N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.F., 353 N.J.Super. 623, 636, 803 A.2d 721 (App.Div.2002); see also N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.L.W., 419 N.J.Super. 568, 579, 18 A.3d 193 (App.Div.2011); In re E.M.B., 348 N.J.Super. 31, 34, 791 A.2d 256 (App.Div.2002). And it is also well-established that foster care is only designed as a “temporary palliative to care for children whose parents are unable to do so for one or more reasons.”