## Facts

- A.C., the biological mother of three minor children, voluntarily placed them in foster care due to homelessness, domestic violence, and substance abuse.
- The child-welfare agency initially permitted unsupervised visitation, later restricted visitation based on concerns about A.C.’s drug use and domestic violence, and eventually terminated visitation after transferring the case to an adoption-focused unit.
- A.C. entered substance-abuse treatment and presented evidence of significant rehabilitation.
- Evidence indicated A.C. maintained a meaningful bond with at least two of the children, while the children also formed stable attachments to their foster parents.
- The agency petitioned for guardianship and termination of A.C.’s parental rights to free the children for adoption, relying largely on expert testimony that disrupting foster placements could cause psychological harm.
- A.C. agreed to adoption as to one child but opposed termination as to the other two.
- The trial court terminated A.C.’s parental rights to all three children; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the State proved by clear and convincing evidence, under New Jersey’s “best interests of the child” standard, that termination of A.C.’s parental rights was warranted.
2. Whether predicted psychological harm from separating children from foster parents, without clear and convincing evidence of continuing parental unfitness or likely harm from reunification, can justify termination.
3. Whether the agency satisfied its obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts before seeking termination.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the termination to the extent it rested primarily on foster-care bonding and speculative psychological harm without adequate proof of ongoing parental unfitness or likely serious harm from reunification.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings applying the proper standards to each child’s circumstances, including the mother’s current fitness, the parent-child relationships, and the agency’s reunification efforts.
- The Court held that bonding evidence is relevant but cannot substitute for proof that the parental relationship endangers the child and that the parent is unable or unwilling to eliminate that harm.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights is an extraordinary remedy that requires the most careful protection of parental rights while prioritizing the child’s safety and welfare.
- The State must prove the statutory “best interests” criteria by clear and convincing evidence, including: endangerment from the parental relationship, parental inability or unwillingness to eliminate harm, reasonable agency reunification efforts, and that termination will not do more harm than good.
- A child’s stability in foster care and attachment to foster parents may be considered, but the State must still show that return to the natural parent would likely cause serious and enduring harm that the parent cannot remedy.
- Agency conduct matters: curtailing visitation and shifting prematurely from reunification to adoption may undermine the parent-child relationship and bears on whether reasonable reunification efforts were made.
- Parental rehabilitation and continuing parent-child bonds are central to assessing current fitness and whether termination is necessary.

## Conclusion

The court required a termination analysis grounded in present parental unfitness and demonstrated harm, not primarily in the strength of foster-care attachments; it reversed and remanded for child-specific reassessment under the clear-and-convincing “best interests” framework, including the agency’s reunification efforts and whether termination would do more harm than good.


In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1, 608 A.2d 1312 (N.J. 1992)