Defendant appealed from a judgment of guardianship after trial, terminating her parental rights to four of her children. The panel addressed whether the trial court improperly considered evidence of the children's relationship with their foster parents in violation of prong two of the best-interests test. That prong was recently amended by the Legislature, which removed the sentence: "[s]uch harm may include evidence that separating the child from his resource family parents would cause serious and enduring emotional or psychological harm to the child." N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(2) (amended 2021). The Legislature did not alter the other components of the best-interests standard.
The panel rejected the argument that, by deleting the above language from prong two, the Legislature intended to bar all evidence concerning a child's relationship with resource caregivers, even in the context of the other prongs of the best-interest standard. Prong two as amended emphasizes consideration of whether a parent is able to overcome harm to the child as well as whether the parent can cease causing future harm. The amendment clearly isolates those specific inquiries from consideration of the bonds a child has forged with resource caregivers. Nevertheless, the amendments to prong two do not mean that such a bond may never be considered within any part of the best-interests analysis. Neither the legislative history nor the plain text necessitates such a sweeping conclusion.
The panel construed the deletion from prong two to give greater effect to the alteration, in a manner that remains coherent with prong four. The amended statute requires a court to make a finding under prong two that does not include considerations of caregiver bonding, and then weigh that finding against all the evidence that may be considered under prong four—including the harm that would result from disrupting whatever bonds the child has formed.