Photo: Shutterstock.com

New Jersey courts have regarded termination of parental rights as the most severe legal consequence to be issued by the courts, second only to the death penalty. The death penalty was abolished in 2007. Therefore, termination of parental rights is the most severe legal consequence that may be rendered in a court of law in this state.

It is, therefore, contrary to the administration of justice to detain parents on municipal warrants who appear in Superior Court to defend their Constitutional right to parent their child. Detention of a parent on a municipal warrant during a termination of parental rights (TPR) court appearance has far greater consequential magnitude than the penalty imposed by the municipal court. Enforcing the warrant during these proceedings has the practical effect of discouraging a parent from appearing at hearings affecting parental rights, including a trial to determine whether to terminate parental rights.

TPR cases are fast tracked and the detained parent will likely miss crucial service appointments and parenting time at a sensitive juncture in the litigation. In cases where our Supreme Court recognizes a right to counsel, parents detained on municipal warrants will be precluded from effectively participating in their defense, as engaging in services and parenting time are important components to an effective defense in these matters. It is common for parents to be waitlisted for services, and the interruption of a service due to detention on a municipal warrant may cause a parent to be discharged from a court-ordered service that would aid in the parent reunifying with their child. Furthermore, court timeframes may become derailed if evaluations are delayed due to the parent's detention. Plainly, enforcement of municipal warrants at these hearings bars parents' access to justice in TPR proceedings.

I recently represented a mother in a case where my client was detained on a municipal warrant while in the courtroom following a case management conference for an upcoming termination of parental rights trial. The judge had left the bench and there was no ability to request immediate relief on the enforcement of the municipal warrant. The deputy attorney general handling the TPR matter on behalf of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency had alerted the court personnel of the warrant, and I was not aware of the enforcement until the arrest occurred. I called the municipality and it was unwilling to release her on her own recognizance at that time.

The New Jersey Supreme Court's report on municipal court reforms was issued over a year ago. The report recommends, in part, to make greater use of time pay plans and reductions in surcharges in the interests of equal access and fairness. Those recommendations are under review for implementation and codification by statute. While the municipal reforms are being contemplated, it would serve the interests of justice to consider a just policy for handling municipal warrants when the parent-litigant shows up to court for the sole purpose of defending parental rights.

It's not just about parental rights, though. It's also about the best interests of the child. Children are not only entitled to attend permanency hearings, but mandated to appear at the hearings by provisions in federal and state laws. Our Supreme Court has held that children over the age of 10 and children that wish to express an opinion to the court should be allowed to do so. Is it in the best interests of the child who has been brought to a proceeding regarding their welfare to witness the enforcement of a municipal warrant for their parent? Will the parenting time venue be changed to the place of incarceration, or will they be suspended? The current practice of enforcement of warrants in children in court matters does not serve the best interests of the child, the parent, the agency who may have to reinstitute services, or the trial court which may incur delays as a collateral effect. If applied, the strict scrutiny standard would fail.

With the recognition that our state prioritizes this docket, has opined that losing parental rights is a consequence of magnitude with the most severe of legal consequences, and that municipal court practices are under review for reform, it is imperative that our courts review protocol in these situations.

Amy Vasquez, who practices in Burlington, previously worked at the Innocence Project as the inaugural Haywood Burns fellow. She represents parents in Burlington and Mercer Counties. The views and opinions expressed in this article are of Amy Vasquez and not intended to represent the views of any other entity.