Justices Affirm Right to Self-Representation When Parental Rights at Risk
"We affirm New Jersey's long-standing adherence to the principle that a competent litigant may represent himself or herself in a matter in which he or she is a party," wrote Justice Anne Patterson for the court in "Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. R.L.M. and J.J."
December 10, 2018 at 06:02 PM
3 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that, while it is likely not a smart move strategically, a parent involved in a case in which he or she may lose parental rights does have the right to represent himself or herself in the termination proceedings.
In a unanimous ruling, the court said on Monday that, with certain limitations, requests for self-representation in parental-rights termination matters are not barred by statute.
“We affirm New Jersey's long-standing adherence to the principle that a competent litigant may represent himself or herself in a matter in which he or she is a party,” wrote Justice Anne Patterson for the court in Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. R.L.M. and J.J.
“Although a parent's decision to appear pro se in this complex and consequential litigation represents poor strategy in all but the rarest case, [the statute] plainly authorizes the parent to proceed unrepresented,” Patterson said.
The litigation involved two parents, identified only as the mother, R.L.M., and the father, J.J.
The state Division of Child Permanency and Placement had moved to terminate the parental rights to one of their children: a girl identified only as R.A.L.
At one point, the court said, J.J., who had been assigned counsel, told a motion judge that he wanted to represent himself because he wanted to file a number of motions on his own, and that he had an uncle who was a paralegal who was going to help him.
J.J. later told the judge he changed his mind and wanted to be represented by an attorney, and he was assigned counsel.
Then, during the trial, J.J. changed his mind again, and told the judge he wanted to represent himself. The judge declined the request and ultimately terminated the parental rights. An appeals court affirmed the ruling.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision to terminate the parental rights but decided to take up the issue of self-representation.
Patterson said the judge below got it wrong, and also said the right to self-representation is not absolute.
A pro se party must demonstrate competency, make a clear and unequivocal demand to self-representation, make the representation in a timely manner, and make the demand in such a way as to not disrupt court proceedings.
“Self-representation may undermine the litigant's position in this case, and an obstructive pro se party can impede—if not derail—the progress of the case,” Patterson said.
Nevertheless, the right to self-representation remains strong, she said.
“We hold that a parent has the right to represent himself or herself in an action to terminate his or her parental rights, with the assistance of standby counsel at the court's discretion,” Patterson said.
The Attorney General's Office, which represented the DCPP, declined to comment.
On appeal, J.J. was represented by Morristown solo John Albright. Calls to his office were unanswered.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllConstruction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Events for Georgia Lawyers
- 2'There is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
- 3The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 4Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 5In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250