NJ & CT News

NEW JERSEY

Top Court to Decide on Retroactive Effect of Child Custody Arbitration Ruling

New Jersey's state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether retroactive application is warranted of its 2009 ruling that parents can arbitrate child custody issues if a thorough record is kept. Last December, the Appellate Division held that Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456 (2009), should be given pipeline retroactivity “where it will serve the interests of justice by permitting currently litigating parties to resolve their claims on the merits.” The current case, Johnson v. Johnson, A-91-09, is one of four the court agreed on May 7 to hear.

Assembly Panel Advances Bill Giving Adoptees Access To Birth Records

A bill allowing adoptees to access their original birth certificates is moving toward a final vote, despite concerns that the measure shows too little respect for birth parents' privacy. The Assembly Human Services Committee's 6-0 approval of the bill, A-1406, on June 14 clears the way for final legislative approval by the Assembly. The Senate passed the measure in March. The bill would amend N.J.S.A. 26:8-40.1 to allow adopted people over 18 years old to obtain copies of their original birth certificates from the state registrar. Birth parents would be required to explain in writing whether they want direct contact with the child, contact through an intermediary or no contact, but that declaration would not be binding on the registrar.

Parental Rights Trump Bonds with Foster Parents

The possibility that a child may suffer serious psychological or emotional harm from severing bonds with foster parents is not alone sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights, a New Jersey appeals court says. What must be proved, in essence, is that formation of foster-parental bond was in large part the birth parent's doing, to the point where “any harm caused to the child by severing the bond rests at the feet of the parent,” the Appellate Division held in Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.M., A-6020-08. The ruling, reversing a trial court's decision, is an important victory for birth parents because of its insistence that the best-interest-of-the child standard be followed scrupulously in termination cases, despite a Supreme Court ruling that seemed to allow a more expansive interpretation.

CONNECTICUT

Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction

Finding that a trial court lacked jurisdiction in a marriage dissolution, alimony and child support action, the Appellate Court of Connecticut recently vacated the judgment in Narayan v. Narayan, — A.2d —-, 122 Conn.App. 206, 2010 WL 2519642 (Conn.App.). The wife in Narayan filed for divorce in 2007 but, despite repeated attempts by state marshals, the defendant was never served process. In another action, Connecticut's commissioner of social services filed a support petition against the husband in July, 2007, which was assigned the same docket number as the dissolution action. The husband was successfully served process for the support action when the petition, order and summons were delivered to his employer.

During a proceeding in the support action, counsel for the defendant filed an appearance with the court, but counsel was not retained to, nor was he authorized to, represent the husband in the dissolution action. Thus, when the dissolution action was heard in November 2008 the husband was self-represented. He did not appear in that action. In his absence, the wife successfully represented to the court that her husband had filed an appearance in the dissolution action, perhaps because he had done so in the support action that carried the same docket number. Based on this, the trial court determined it had jurisdiction over the husband. It granted the divorce and awarded the wife alimony and child support. The husband then moved to vacate all orders, claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him in the dissolution action.

The appellate court agreed with the husband because the trial court's record contained no evidence of the husband's appearance. In addition, the trial court failed to make a finding pursuant to General Statutes ' 46b-46, the statute governing the Connecticut court's jurisdiction over nonresident parties in actions for alimony and support. Here, there was no evidence that the defendant had been served actual notice of the case. “The court, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, as the defendant was never served process in the dissolution action, nor did the court make the requisite findings of fact to support an exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant,” stated the appellate court. Since this was the case, the lower court's grant of the dissolution and award to the plaintiff of alimony and child support were void.

NEW JERSEY

Top Court to Decide on Retroactive Effect of Child Custody Arbitration Ruling

New Jersey's state Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether retroactive application is warranted of its 2009 ruling that parents can arbitrate child custody issues if a thorough record is kept. Last December, the Appellate Division held that Fawzy v. Fawzy , 199 N.J. 456 (2009), should be given pipeline retroactivity “where it will serve the interests of justice by permitting currently litigating parties to resolve their claims on the merits.” The current case, Johnson v. Johnson, A-91-09, is one of four the court agreed on May 7 to hear.

Assembly Panel Advances Bill Giving Adoptees Access To Birth Records

A bill allowing adoptees to access their original birth certificates is moving toward a final vote, despite concerns that the measure shows too little respect for birth parents' privacy. The Assembly Human Services Committee's 6-0 approval of the bill, A-1406, on June 14 clears the way for final legislative approval by the Assembly. The Senate passed the measure in March. The bill would amend N.J.S.A. 26:8-40.1 to allow adopted people over 18 years old to obtain copies of their original birth certificates from the state registrar. Birth parents would be required to explain in writing whether they want direct contact with the child, contact through an intermediary or no contact, but that declaration would not be binding on the registrar.

Parental Rights Trump Bonds with Foster Parents

The possibility that a child may suffer serious psychological or emotional harm from severing bonds with foster parents is not alone sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights, a New Jersey appeals court says. What must be proved, in essence, is that formation of foster-parental bond was in large part the birth parent's doing, to the point where “any harm caused to the child by severing the bond rests at the feet of the parent,” the Appellate Division held in Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.M., A-6020-08. The ruling, reversing a trial court's decision, is an important victory for birth parents because of its insistence that the best-interest-of-the child standard be followed scrupulously in termination cases, despite a Supreme Court ruling that seemed to allow a more expansive interpretation.

CONNECTICUT

Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction

Finding that a trial court lacked jurisdiction in a marriage dissolution, alimony and child support action, the Appellate Court of Connecticut recently vacated the judgment in Narayan v. Narayan, — A.2d —-, 122 Conn.App. 206, 2010 WL 2519642 (Conn.App.). The wife in Narayan filed for divorce in 2007 but, despite repeated attempts by state marshals, the defendant was never served process. In another action, Connecticut's commissioner of social services filed a support petition against the husband in July, 2007, which was assigned the same docket number as the dissolution action. The husband was successfully served process for the support action when the petition, order and summons were delivered to his employer.

During a proceeding in the support action, counsel for the defendant filed an appearance with the court, but counsel was not retained to, nor was he authorized to, represent the husband in the dissolution action. Thus, when the dissolution action was heard in November 2008 the husband was self-represented. He did not appear in that action. In his absence, the wife successfully represented to the court that her husband had filed an appearance in the dissolution action, perhaps because he had done so in the support action that carried the same docket number. Based on this, the trial court determined it had jurisdiction over the husband. It granted the divorce and awarded the wife alimony and child support. The husband then moved to vacate all orders, claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him in the dissolution action.

The appellate court agreed with the husband because the trial court's record contained no evidence of the husband's appearance. In addition, the trial court failed to make a finding pursuant to General Statutes ' 46b-46, the statute governing the Connecticut court's jurisdiction over nonresident parties in actions for alimony and support. Here, there was no evidence that the defendant had been served actual notice of the case. “The court, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, as the defendant was never served process in the dissolution action, nor did the court make the requisite findings of fact to support an exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant,” stated the appellate court. Since this was the case, the lower court's grant of the dissolution and award to the plaintiff of alimony and child support were void.