Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. S.R

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


May 10, 2011

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
S.R., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.M.R., JR., A MINOR.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket No. FG-07-194-09.

Per curiam.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 3, 2011

Before Judges Wefing, Baxter and Koblitz.

S.R. is the mother of S.M.R., Jr. She is appealing from the trial court judgment terminating her parental rights with respect to her son, who is now almost four years of age. S.R. is also the mother of T.R., a daughter, who was born while the proceedings with respect to S.M.R., Jr. were ongoing. Because T.R. at birth tested positive for the presence of marijuana, she also was removed from S.R.'s custody. We are informed that while S.R.'s appeal with respect to S.M.R., Jr. was pending before this court, the trial judge who terminated S.R.'s parental rights with respect to S.M.R., Jr., returned physical custody of T.R. to S.R. She remains, however, under the care and supervision of the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). We have concluded that this matter should be temporarily remanded to the trial judge, with directions that within thirty days he reconsider, in light of that, whether S.R.'s parental rights to S.M.R, Jr. should be terminated. The trial judge shall report the results of his reconsideration in writing to this court, with copies to counsel. Whether additional evidence should be submitted rests within the discretion of the trial judge.

We acknowledge that while this appeal was pending S.R.

filed a motion for such a remand and that her motion was denied.

Her motion, however, sought the remand in order to permit her to file a motion seeking reconsideration under Rule 4:50-1, proceedings far more expansive than that which we have directed. The remand we have ordered is limited and focused and does not conflict with the earlier motion order.

The matter is temporarily remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion; jurisdiction is retained.

20110510

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.