Grandparents rights in the real world

This is my way of communicating what this whole grandparents rights struggle is about.

The following is a real life scenario of a court battle allowing the maternal grandmother to adopt two children of R.A.A. & L.R. in Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, January, 2010.

Congratulations Grandma, you have accomplished an essential and wonderful deed. By asserting your grandparents rights you have managed to rescue your grandchildren from life in a very dysfunctional household. I hope you realize what a good and noble thing you have done. I for one recognize your very long and agonizing struggle to make life better for these innocent and deserving little ones.

I describe the household as VERY dysfunctional because by design the courts give parents rights their constitutional weight, just as they should. Parental rights are, appropriately, protected in four different amendments to the constitution which speaks to the importance our forefathers placed on this sacred responsibility of parenting our children. Given this weight of the law it takes repeated and egregious behavior on the part of the parents before the courts seriously intervene.

I will summarize an all-too typical custody case to make this point. I warn you that it is hard on the caring heart to read. As you take all of this in please remain mindful of the length of time and amount of trauma the child must endure to allow every opportunity of the parents to do the right thing. Also realize the commitment the grandmother has made in the grandchildren’s best interest.

In December, 2008 R.A.A had his parental rights for these two children terminated to award guardianship to the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) with the ultimate permanent plan to be adoption by the children’s maternal grandmother. The childrens’ ages at this time were 3 and 4 years old.

The mother A.R. voluntarily surrendered her parental rights at this time to allow her mother to adopt the two children. DYFS first became involved in June, 2006 when the mother then 4 months pregnant was admitted to the emergency room and had to have her jaw wired shut. She refused to press charges against R.A.A. The case was closed.

Four months later DYFS was referred again when R.A.A. arrived home at 2:45 a.m. and found the two small children (1 week old and 18 months old) in the care of a 12 year old step sister. The mother had abandoned the children to go out and purchase illegal drugs. The police found that the living area had dirt on the floor, boxes stacked and only a mattress in the living room for furniture.  The parents took the children to Philadelphia to avoid the police.

After 4 more months they moved back to New Jersey at which time DYFS tried to communicate with the mother and she was “very verbally hostile to the  case worker” and refused to tell DYFS were the children were. A judge finally placed the children under the custody, care, and supervision of DYFS.

The judge determined that removal was necessary to avoid ongoing risk to the life, safety or health of the children due to 1) allegations of child endangerment against the father, 2) domestic violence issues and 3) substance abuse problems.

Later that month the father surrendered custody of the children and they were placed with their maternal grandmother with DYFS retaining legal custody. Physical examinations showed the children had scabies, eczema, fever, scattered lesions and an ear infection.

Even at this point, the DYFS arranged for visitation but the father did not visit on a regular basis.  DYFS also provided services to the father for treatment to assist him with reunification with his children. Over the next year the house remained in deplorable condition and the father failed to attend his parenting, domestic violence and anger management therapy on a consistent basis.

That is when the father pled guilty to a drug manufacturing charge and was found with a gun that had the identification altered. The ensuing psychological evaluation found that “he did not present as parentally motivated or involved when discussing his children”. Further the doctor said “he does not present as capable of caring for and protecting his two toddlers and that it would not be in the children’s best interest to be placed in his care.”

Mercifully, for the past year, with temporary placement in the grandparents home the Child Placement Review Board agreed that the children are currently “doing fairly well with and are fairly close to their grandparents”. It was stated that the children viewed their grandparents as “the main parental figure” and that “the attachment is much more secure with their grandparents and they are in a stable healthy situation”.

The courts ruled to terminate the father’s parental rights. It would be less catastrophic for all concerned if this ended the madness but the father appealed. He claimed that the court did not consider the four factors necessary to terminate his rights as a parent.

The four statutory factors are as follow:

1)  Children’s safety, health and development. The court stated that the children’s health and safety were endangered from the time of their birth and the likelihood of that situation changing to be minimal, at best.

2)  The DYFS provided the father a plethora of services to help him “cure and overcome the initial harm that endangered the health, safety or welfare of the children and continue to do so.”  By his own admission he didn’t attend these sessions consistently and take full advantage of the skills they offered.

3)  The DYFS provided services to help the father learn parenting skills and he didn’t attend these sessions consistently either.

4)  The judge determined that the termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the children. It was further determined that the continuation of the relationship between the children and the grandparents was also in the best interest of the children.

In the end, the Appeals Court upheld the original decision to terminate the father’s rights and the custody of the children is presently with DYFS and the plan is for the maternal grandmother to adopt the children.

I think the best word I can find for this is “Amen”.

I have asked you to trudge through all of this for two very good reasons. First to establish that grandparents rights are not and should not be intended to take the place of parental rights in functioning family units. Second to show that the caring grandparent is usually the one that can be counted on to pick up the pieces and offer these kids a glimmer of hope.

As I conclude I hope you realize that this is just the beginning of the life changing challenges for the grandparents. On top of the significant physical and financial responsibility I can only imagine the emotional toll this must have taken on the grandparents.

All I can say is “Thank God for Caring Grandparents”.

NEIL

To learn more about the issue surrounding grandparents rights visit The Custody Center