From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

W.R.A.H. v. D.M.A.H.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Oct 24, 2018
DOCKET NO. A-4440-16T2 (App. Div. Oct. 24, 2018)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-4440-16T2

10-24-2018

W.R.A.H., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.M.A.H., Defendant-Respondent.

Cesar Martin Estela, attorney for appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. Before Judges Whipple and Rose. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, chancery Division, Family Part, Mercer County, Docket No. FD-11-0866-16. Cesar Martin Estela, attorney for appellant. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM

Appellant W.R.A.H. (Wyatt) appealed the trial court's May 3, 2017 amended order, finding that L.E.A.H. (Luke) could viably be reunified with his mother, respondent D.M.A.H. (Diane). Following our review of the record and applicable legal principles, we reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We retained jurisdiction. The facts and applicable law underlying plaintiff's appeal were set forth in our opinion and need not be repeated here. On remand, the Family Part judge made the required findings in a written opinion, which it subsequently filed in this court. In his decision, the judge explained the reasons why he did not find Wyatt to be abandoned under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 (c)(5) and why Wyatt could not be reunited with his mother. Wyatt filed a supplemental brief arguing the remand court erred finding Wyatt was not an abandoned or neglected child. Having again reviewed the hearing record and considered the judge's written decision, we affirm.

To find abandonment under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(5), a trial court must make specific findings concerning the conduct of the parent or guardian evidencing a true forsaking of the child. Conduct by a parent that evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child is an extremely high bar. New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. A.B., 231 N.J. 354, 372 (2017). Under the facts presented here that bar was not reached.

Affirmed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION


Summaries of

W.R.A.H. v. D.M.A.H.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Oct 24, 2018
DOCKET NO. A-4440-16T2 (App. Div. Oct. 24, 2018)
Case details for

W.R.A.H. v. D.M.A.H.

Case Details

Full title:W.R.A.H., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.M.A.H., Defendant-Respondent.

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Oct 24, 2018

Citations

DOCKET NO. A-4440-16T2 (App. Div. Oct. 24, 2018)