Court cases on guardianship

Info for giving temp. guardianship to someone else..

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Court cases on guardianship

Postby Marina » Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:14 pm

.

http://njfamilylaw.foxrothschild.com/ta ... al-rights/

Posted on March 14, 2008 by Sandra C. Fava

New developments on kinship-legal guardianship

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently handed down an interesting decision regarding termination of parental rights and kinship legal guardianship interpreting the Kinship Legal Guardianship Act in New Jersey. In the matter of Division of Youth and Family Services v. D.H. and J.V., was a case where the Law Guardian filed an interlocutory appeal from the Division of Youth and Family Service's ("DYFS") Order approving a permanency plan to terminate the birth parents' rights followed by a select-home adoption. The trial court rejected kinship legal guardianship ("KLG"), Kinship Legal Guardianship Act, N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-1 et seq., as a permanent placement option, finding that "based on the child's age, termination would be more appropriate." In this case, A.H., a five year old girl, lived with her maternal grandmother, K.P., for seventeen months prior to the hearing. K.P. wanted the child to live with her on a long-term basis, but did not wish to adopt her. It was clear from the evidence that neither biological parent could care for A.H. In this case, the appellate division reversed and remanded the trial court's decision, finding that the KLG is an alternative permanency plan to severing parental rights. KLG does not terminate parental rights. The birth parents retain the right to: (1) consent to adoption; (2) change the child's name; and (3) visit the child. The birth parents are also obligated to pay child support, and the child is still eligible to receive inheritance, benefits, or insurance from his or her birthparents. When adoption is neither feasible nor, likely, particularly when kinship caregiver's own child or sibling is the birth parent, an alternative to termination is desirable. A KLG will typically be a caregiver with "biological, legal, extended or committed emotional or psychological relationship with a child and who is willing to assume care of the child due to parental incapacity or inability, with the intent to raise the child to adulthood. Once the caregiver becomes a KLG, the caregiver is entitled to make all decisions relating to the care and well being of the child. KLG was enacted by the legislature to formalize the status of a relative who agrees to take on the responsibility for a child, and it can remain in place throughout the child's minority. In order to establish KLG is appropriate, the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) each parent's incapacity is of such a serious nature as to demonstrate that the parents are unable, unavailable, or unwilling to perform the regular and expected functions of care and support; (2) thee parents' inability to perform those functions is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future; (3) in cases in which [DYFS] is involved with the child ... (a) [DYFS] exercised reasonable efforts to reunify the child with the birth parents and these reunification efforts have proven unsuccessful or unnecessary; and (b) adoption of the child is neither feasible, nor likely; and (4) awarding kinship legal guardianship is in the child's best interest. N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-6d. To view this case click here

.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:31 pm

.

http://www.kidscounsel.org/caselibrary_ ... eleonj.htm

Case: In re Deleon J.
Connecticut Supreme Court
February 10, 2009

REINSTATEMENT OF GUARDIANSHIP/ JURISDICTION/ DUE PROCESS

The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s failure to provide the petitioning parent with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on the merits of her request for guardianship denied her due process of law. The Court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings.

The case originally began in the juvenile court several years earlier after the state filed a neglect petition against the mother. The parties subsequently agreed to transfer guardianship of the minor child to the grandmother. Five years later, the mother moved the juvenile court for reinstatement of her guardianship rights. Shortly thereafter, counsel for the child informed the court that the child was no longer residing in state, but rather had moved to live with the biological father in South Carolina. The court asked the parties to brief the issue of whether it retained jurisdiction over the guardianship matter and whether an evidentiary hearing was required as to the jurisdictional issues in the case. The court set down a date for further hearing on the jurisdictional questions.

At the follow-up hearing, the court reviewed the child’s counsel’s recommendation that the child’s best interests were served by remaining in South Carolina with his father. Counsel for the mother was not present and did not file a brief regarding the jurisdictional issues. A covering attorney was present, however he did not address the jurisdictional matter or the merits of the mother’s petition. The court again voiced its skepticism regarding whether it retained jurisdiction over the child’s guardianship and ultimately concluded that the child’s best interests were served by remaining with his father in South Carolina.

The Supreme Court held that pursuant to the plain language of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the court retained jurisdiction over the guardianship case because at least one parent continued to reside in the state and the court had made a previous custody determination in the matter. The Court also held that the trial court improperly expanded the scope of the final hearing to include a decision regarding the merits of the mother’s petition, and that the mother had not received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment was reversed.

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:13 am

.

http://adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org/case ... php?id=339

MINNESOTA: In re the Welfare of the Child of: T.C.M.
01.07.2009 | Termination of Parental Rights


a temporary and revocable delegation of parental authority does not either divest a person of parental rights or preclude a proceeding for termination of parental rights

Marina
Moderator
Posts: 5496
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:06 pm

Postby Marina » Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:02 pm

.

Either guardianship or Agency custody - not both

http://www.neappleseed.org/docs/selecte ... 7_0708.pdf

The Court of Appeals concluded that “it is inconsistent with
Nebraska law for the juvenile court to have appointed Jazzmine’s grandmother as guardian, but required
DHHS to retain its custodial responsibilities for her at the same time”. The Court of Appeals held that DHHS
should have been relieved of its custody of and responsibility for Jazzmine once her grandmother was
appointed guardian.

.


Return to “Temp. Guardianship”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests