Court ends dad's rights because of mom

The state Supreme Court terminated a father's right to raise his 4-year-old special needs son Thursday because they would have lived with the boy's alcoholic and mentally retarded mother.

The court noted the father did not pose a direct threat to his son, but decided in a 4-2 ruling that the child should remain with foster parents because "the father failed to provide a home in which the son was not in constant danger."

Experts found that the mother had the intellect of a child, ran away from home for "alcoholic binges," and made repeated false charges of domestic abuse.

"Although we are mindful of the mother's limitations, it is the father who established the dangerous situation at home, who maintains those conditions, and who is unable or unwilling to substantially alter those conditions," the justices wrote.

The unmarried couple were identified by their initials, M.M. and C.B. He is 60 and she is 32. They have a daughter at home in her early teens.

Within days of their son's birth, the Division of Youth and Family Services determined the mother was overwhelmed by caring for the newborn. The court said his developmental disorders were probably caused by prenatal overexposure to alcohol.

Both parents had appealed a trial court's decision to terminate their parental rights, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the mother's appeal.

The foster parents now hope to adopt the child, the court said. The foster parents support continued visitation by his father and sister, but not the mother. Her presence upsets the boy, they said.

A statement from the father's lawyer, Joseph Krakora, said the termination was not justified, but that they are pleased the ruling allows for visitation.

DYFS spokesman Andy Williams said, "It's never happy for us to terminate a parent's rights, but we are pleased that the court agreed with our assessment that it is in this child's best interest."

Lorraine Augostini, a court-appointed lawyer for the 4-year-old, said in a statement that she was "pleased that the court remained focused on the specific needs and best interests of this child."

Two dissenting justices contended that authorities lacked clear and convincing evidence to end parental rights.

They also argued, quoting from the court's 1988 ruling in the Baby "M" surrogate mother case, that "the mere fact that a child would be better off with one set of parents than with another is an insufficient basis for terminating the natural parent's rights."

___

On the Net:

Court decision: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A-115-05.pdf