Case Summary: What "In the Matter of KHO" Means for Parental Rights in New Jersey

The 1999 New Jersey Supreme Court Decision Set Important Standards That Govern Today's Parental Rights Cases

Termination of parental rights is one of the most serious issues New Jersey's Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCP&P) – formerly known as the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) – handles. The stakes are extremely high, and the outcome will have long-lasting effects on the lives of everyone involved.

Parental rights matters are complicated. Issues of parental fitness, guardianship, and adoption can also come into play in these cases. DCP&P investigations can be extremely stressful, and the process can be long and confusing, and disruptive to a family's everyday life.

State laws, in addition to DCP&P rules, processes, and procedures, govern cases involving guardianship, custody, and parental rights. Decisions made by New Jersey courts also help shape the state's laws and policies that pertain to how these cases are decided.

Some court rulings are very significant because they set standards and define principles that New Jersey courts and the DCP&P follow years after the decisions are handed down. It's important to know about these cases and what they mean in order to achieve the best possible outcome in any parental rights, guardianship, or custody matter.

One such case is In the Matter of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337 (1999). It's a New Jersey Supreme Court case that deals with the issue of terminating the parental rights of a biological parent so that a foster family can adopt the child.

Although it was decided in 1999, the K.H.O. holding still applies today. Anyone who is involved with custody, guardianship, or termination of parental rights case in New Jersey should be familiar with the K.H.O. case and the implications it can have on your specific situation.

Summary of Facts: Child Born Addicted to Heroin

On August 31, 1993, a child, referred to in the case as "K.H.O.", was born addicted to heroin and also suffered from respiratory problems and cleft palate syndrome. K.H.O.'s mother used drugs while she was pregnant with her.

K.H.O. spent the first month of her life in the hospital. Her mother continued to use drugs and, on September 29, 1993, voluntarily placed K.H.O. in foster care. Over the next few years, K.H.O.'s mother entered into and failed to complete many drug treatment programs and failed numerous DYFS drug tests and evaluations.

DYFS Seeks to Terminate Mother's Parental Rights So Foster Family Can Adopt Her Child

During her time in foster care, K.H.O. lived with the same foster family and developed a close, loving relationship with them. In August of 1996, DYFS sought to terminate K.H.O.'s mother's parental rights so that K.H.O.'s foster parents could adopt her. K.H.O's biological mother contested this, and the court ordered her to undergo psychological, substance abuse, and bonding evaluations.

Psychologists who conducted the evaluations concluded that K.H.O.'s biological mother would not be able to provide a suitable home for her child and that K.H.O. would suffer "significant and enduring harm" if she were separated from her foster family.

In addition, K.H.O.'s mother told the court that she was incapable of caring for K.H.O. and that she needed more time to be ready to take custody of the child. At trial, DYFS advocated for the termination of parental rights, and the court-appointed psychologist recommended that K.H.O. "be freed for adoption."

Lower Court's Decision to Terminate K.H.O.'s Mother's Parental Rights

In reaching its decision to terminate the mother's parental rights, the court considered what was in K.H.O's "best interests" under New Jersey law and applied the standards set forth in statute N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). Specifically, the court looked into whether:

  1. K.H.O.'s safety, health, or development had been or would have continued to be endangered by her relationship with her mother.
  2. K.H.O.'s mother was unwilling or unable to "eliminate the harm facing the child", or "was unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable home" for K.H.O., and whether "the delay of permanent placement" would "add to the harm."
  3. DYFS made reasonable efforts to provide services to help K.H.O's mother "correct the circumstances which led to the child's placement outside the home" and whether the court "considered alternatives to termination of parental rights."
  4. "Termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good."

The court determined that the harm K.H.O.'s mother's drug use caused K.H.O. in utero was sufficient to meet the first element of the best interests test. The court also found that K.H.O. would suffer irreparable harm if she were to be separated from her foster parents, which satisfied the fourth element of the test.

The Appellate Division reversed the decision and held that the facts of the case did not satisfy either the first or the fourth prongs of the best interests test.

The New Jersey Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Division, Affirms Termination of Parental Rights, and Emphasizes Importance of Permanency In New Jersey

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division's findings and reinstated the trial court's decision to terminate K.H.O.'s mother's parental rights. In its opinion, the court made many significant findings and set standards that still apply to New Jersey parental rights cases today.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the facts of the case to the "best interests" standard set forth in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The court held that a child's health and development are endangered within the meaning of the statute when the child is born with drug addiction, and the child's biological mother can't care for them at birth.

The court also found that the mother's inability to overcome her drug addiction over a period of many years and care for K.H.O. constituted child endangerment within the meaning of the statute, as did the mother's inability to provide a safe and stable home for K.H.O.

In addition, the court held that if there is "clear and convincing evidence" that delaying a child's permanent placement in a foster home will cause the child to "suffer from a lack of stability" and "disrupt the child's bond with their foster parents," then the best interests test is satisfied.

Finally, the court held that termination of parental rights would not do more harm than good where the facts of the case show that the child's bond with their foster parents is strong and the child's bond with their biological parent is not.

Why the New Jersey Supreme Court's In the Matter of K.H.O. DecisionIs Important

The K.H.O. case is important because the findings of the New Jersey Supreme Court in that case still apply to parental rights cases in New Jersey today. Specifically, it shows how New Jersey courts will approach cases where DCP&P seeks to terminate parental rights as a basis for a child's adoption and how courts will apply the "best interests" test.

Additionally, the K.H.O. case is a good example of the many factors New Jersey courts will consider in parental rights cases and how, when deciding whether or not to terminate a parent's parental rights, the courts will weigh the potential benefits to the child of adoption into a stable, loving, permanent home, against the potential harm to the child that may result from separating them from their biological parents.

The opinion is often cited for stating that the "central focus" of New Jersey courts in guardianship and adoption cases should be children's "need for permanency and stability" and that New Jersey's public policy strongly favors permanency.

The Lento Law Firm Can Help Anyone Who Is Facing a DCP&P Investigation or Termination of Their Parental Rights

As the K.H.O. decision illustrates, New Jersey guardianship, child custody, and parental rights cases are complicated, and so much is at stake. It's crucial for anyone who is facing termination of their parental rights – or who is involved in any matter involving the DCP&P – to be knowledgeable about New Jersey's laws, DCP&P processes and procedures, and important court decisions like the K.H.O. case in order to mount a successful defense and obtain the best possible outcome.

And, as the K.H.O. case shows, New Jersey's public policy favoring permanency in guardianship cases means that a court can determine that terminating a parent's parental rights and placing a child in the home of an adopting family are in the child's best interests.

With so much at stake, anyone involved with a New Jersey parental rights, guardianship, or adoption matter needs an experienced legal team who is knowledgeable about New Jersey's laws, important New Jersey court cases like K.H.O, and the intricacies of the DCP&P process. Without such a team, critical mistakes can be made that can destroy families and ruin lives.

Attorney Joseph D. Lento and the Lento Law Firm Criminal Defense Team have years of experience representing clients in parental rights and guardianship cases throughout New Jersey. We are experienced DCP&P attorneys who will fight for your rights and help you achieve the best possible outcome. Call The Lento Law Firm at 888-535-3686, or submit a confidential online consultation form.

​​​Contact The Lento Law Firm Today

When it comes to criminal defense cases, you need the right person in your corner. To learn more about how Mr. Lento can help you, call the Lento Law Firm today at 888-535-3686. or contact him online.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.