62 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 23 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Guardianship of K.H.O.green2 sentences2020In K.H.O., the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights, holding that "where it is shown that the bond with foster parents is strong and, in comparison, the bond with the natural parent is not as strong, that evidence will satisfy the [fourth prong of the best-interests test]." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 363 . 2020In K.H.O., the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights, holding that "where it is shown that the bond with foster parents is strong and, in comparison, the bond with the natural parent is not as strong, that evidence will satisfy the [fourth prong of the best-interests test]." K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 363 . | 8 | 19 |
In Re the Guardianship of DMHgreen2 sentences2022Accordingly, prongs one and two of the best-interests standard "are related to one another, and evidence that supports one informs and may support the other A-1887-20 13 as part of the comprehensive basis for determining the best interests of the child." Ibid. 2021A-5016-18 21 A. We first consider defendant's argument the Division failed to sustain its burden under the first and second prongs of the best-interests standard. "[T]he two components of the harm requirement . . . are related to one another, and evidence that supports one informs and may support the other as part of the comprehensive basis for determining the best interests of the child." In re Guardianship of D.M.H., 161 N.J. 365, 379 (1999). | 6 | 11 |
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. T.D. (In re M.G.)green2 sentences2026Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. T.D., 454 N.J. 2026Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. T.D., 454 N.J. | 3 | 3 |
Paul Emma v. Jessica Evans (070071)green2 sentences2025A past "strong presumption in favor of the surname chosen by the custodial parent," id. at 144 , has given way to the acknowledgment that "while [the presumption] made compelling sense in the setting in which it arose, its continued use arguably can shrink the best-interests analysis to an automatic endorsement of the primary custodial parent's choice in a renaming dispute." Emma, 215 N.J. at 218 . 2025Under the best-interests standard, the parents should be "on equal footing." Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309, 334 (2017) (quoting Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. 197, 221-22 (2013)). | 2 | 2 |
Gubernat v. Deremergreen2 sentences2025A past "strong presumption in favor of the surname chosen by the custodial parent," id. at 144 , has given way to the acknowledgment that "while [the presumption] made compelling sense in the setting in which it arose, its continued use arguably can shrink the best-interests analysis to an automatic endorsement of the primary custodial parent's choice in a renaming dispute." Emma, 215 N.J. at 218 . 2013Specifically, we examine whether the best-interests test is well-served by continuing a presumption in favor of a primary custodial parent, see Gubernat, supra, 140 N.J. at 123, 141 , 657 A.2d 856 , in renaming disputes that involve a change in a child’s surname from that which was originally jointly selected by the parents at birth. *217 In our revisiting of Gubernat in this decision, we cannot add to the opinion’s learned recitation of the history of Western culture’s naming practices. | 1 | 4 |
New Jersey Dyfs v. Gmgreen2 sentences2020Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 609 (1986)). "[A] noncustodial parent who obtains full-time care of a child after the initiation of child-protection proceedings 'may always initiate a request for a change in custody,' which involves a changed-circumstances inquiry and, ultimately, becomes a best-interests analysis." I.S., 214 N.J. at 40 (quoting G.M., 198 N.J. at 402 n.3). 2013In G.M., supra, we recognized that a noncustodial parent who obtains full-time care of a child after the initiation of child-protection proceedings “may always initiate a request for a change in custody,” which involves a changed-circumstances inquiry and, ultimately, becomes a best-interests analysis. 198 N.J. at 402 n. 3, 968 A.2d 698 . | 1 | 4 |
Fawzy v. Fawzygreen2 sentences2016Substantively, it is a "heavy burden." Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1, 18 (2016); cf. Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456, 479 (2009) ("The threat of harm is a significantly higher burden than a best-interests analysis."). 2010Where the hearing yields a finding of harm, the court must set aside the arbitration award and decide the case anew, using the best-interests test. [ Fawzy, supra, 199 N.J. at 479 , 973 A. 2d 347 .] Here, neither party raised any real claim of unfitness. | 1 | 3 |
Jaime Taormina Bisbing v. Glenn R. Bisbing, III (077533) (Sussex County and Statewide)green2 sentences2025Under the best-interests standard, the parents should be "on equal footing." Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309, 334 (2017) (quoting Emma v. Evans, 215 N.J. 197, 221-22 (2013)). 2021In Bisbing, our Supreme Court departed from the two-part removal test in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 118-20 (2001), and replaced it with the best-interests standard embodied in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. 230 N.J. at 312-13 . | 1 | 2 |
Anthony C. Major v. Julie Maguire(074345)green2 sentences2022"Absent a showing that the child will suffer harm if . . . visitation is denied, a trial court may not mandate visitation pursuant to the best-interests factors of N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1." Major, 224 N.J. at 18 ; see also Slawinski v. Nicholas, 448 N.J. 2016Substantively, it is a "heavy burden." Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1, 18 (2016); cf. Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456, 479 (2009) ("The threat of harm is a significantly higher burden than a best-interests analysis."). | 1 | 2 |
Fantony v. Fantonygreen2 sentences2021The best-interests analysis must include judgments about the child's "safety, happiness, physical, mental and moral welfare." Fantony, 21 N.J. at 536 . 2019The best-interests standard focuses on the "safety, happiness, physical, mental and moral welfare of the child." See Fantony v. Fantony, 21 N.J. 525, 536 (1956). | 1 | 2 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A.W.green2 sentences2020Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 609 (1986)). "[A] noncustodial parent who obtains full-time care of a child after the initiation of child-protection proceedings 'may always initiate a request for a change in custody,' which involves a changed-circumstances inquiry and, ultimately, becomes a best-interests analysis." I.S., 214 N.J. at 40 (quoting G.M., 198 N.J. at 402 n.3). 2010In my view, codification of the best-interests test has done nothing to eliminate such considerations from the harm analysis for there is an obvious harmful impact on a child from the withholding of parental care and nurture. 10 “[T]he attention and concern of a caring family ‘is the most precious of all resources.’ ” In re D.M.H., supra, 161 N.J. at 379, 736 A.2d 1261 (quoting A.W., supra, 103 N.J. at 613 , 512 A.2d 438 ). | 1 | 2 |
Nancy E. Landers v. Patrick J. Landersgreen1 sentence2025See Landers, 444 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Donna Slawinski v. Mary E. Nicholasgreen1 sentence2022"Absent a showing that the child will suffer harm if . . . visitation is denied, a trial court may not mandate visitation pursuant to the best-interests factors of N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1." Major, 224 N.J. at 18 ; see also Slawinski v. Nicholas, 448 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. F.M.green1 sentence2021See F.M., 211 N.J. at 452 (2012) (explaining the third prong of the best-interests standard 5 Judge Forrest also noted Rae's expert, Dr. Figurelli testified it would be unfair to place Rae's children's needs on hold "forever" in anticipation of her compliance with services. | 1 | 1 |
Baures v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2021In Bisbing, our Supreme Court departed from the two-part removal test in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 118-20 (2001), and replaced it with the best-interests standard embodied in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4. 230 N.J. at 312-13 . | 1 | 1 |
New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. R.G. and J.G. (069970)green1 sentence2021Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014) (quoting K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 348-49 ) (explaining prong two of the best-interests standard is satisfied where the "parent is unable to provide a safe and secure home and that the delay in securing permanency continues or adds to the child's harm"); see also N.J. | 1 | 1 |
New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. J.S. in the Matter of the Guardianship of A.G., a Minorgreen1 sentence2019See J.S., 433 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Hoy v. Willisgreen1 sentence2019Although "New Jersey has long espoused a policy favoring the use of consensual agreements to resolve marital controversies," Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185, 193 (1999), parenting time orders are subject to modification at any time "upon a showing of a material change in circumstances," Hoy v. Willis, 165 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Konzelman v. Konzelmangreen1 sentence2019Although "New Jersey has long espoused a policy favoring the use of consensual agreements to resolve marital controversies," Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185, 193 (1999), parenting time orders are subject to modification at any time "upon a showing of a material change in circumstances," Hoy v. Willis, 165 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Mizrahi v. Cannongreen1 sentence2016The harm to the grandchild must be "a particular identifiable harm, specific to the child." Mizrahi v. Cannon, 375 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Emma v. Evansgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Two Minors for Change of Namegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Wilsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brewer v. Porchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Lavin Name Change Petitiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leadingham ex rel. Smith v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Marriage of Schiffmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Application of Saxtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Welch-Doden v. Robertsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Adoption of Children by Gpb, Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re the Guardianship of J.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New Jersey Department of Children & Families v. I.S.
green
2 sentences2022Even if it is safe to return the child, "a noncustodial parent who obtains full-time care of a child after the initiation of child-protection proceedings 'may always initiate a request for a change in custody,' which involves a changed-circumstances inquiry and, ultimately, becomes a best-interests analysis." Id. at 40 (quoting N.J. 2020Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 609 (1986)). "[A] noncustodial parent who obtains full-time care of a child after the initiation of child-protection proceedings 'may always initiate a request for a change in custody,' which involves a changed-circumstances inquiry and, ultimately, becomes a best-interests analysis." I.S., 214 N.J. at 40 (quoting G.M., 198 N.J. at 402 n.3). | 4 | 2019–2022 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. E.P.
green
2 sentences2025It "serves as a fail- safe against termination even where the remaining standards have been met." E.P., 196 N.J. at 108 . 2019Under the fourth prong of the best-interests standard, "[t]he question ultimately is not whether a biological mother or father is a worthy A-2620-17T2 26 parent, but whether a child's interest will best be served by completely terminating the child's relationship with that parent." E.P., 196 N.J. at 108 . | 3 | 2017–2025 |
Watkins v. Nelson
green
2 sentences2010As early as 1889, the highest Court in this State allowed the presumption in favor of a natural parent to be overcome by a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” Richards v. Collins, 45 N.J.Eq. 283 [ 17 A. 831 ] (E. & A.1889). [Watkins, supra, 163 N.J. at 246, 748 A.2d 558 .] Importantly, in distinguishing between best interests and the proper standard—gross misconduct, unfitness, or “exceptional circumstances”'—the Court observed: Put another way, in Watkins we recognized, as we had in W.P., that permitting third-party contact with a child over the objections of the parents based on a best-i 2010In contrast, the latter always requires proof of serious physical or psychological harm or a substantial likelihood of such harm. [ Id. at 248, 748 A. 2d 558 .] Put another way, in Watkins we recognized, as we had in W.P., that permitting third-party contact with a child over the objections of the parents based on a best-interests standard is an unwarranted incursion on the fundamental right of the parents to raise their children as they see fit. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
McDaniels v. Carlson
green
2 sentences1991In McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wash. 2d 299 , 738 P. 2d 254 (1987), the Washington Supreme Court explored "[w]hat role do public policy and the best interests of the child [standard] play in the allowance of paternity actions brought under the ... 1991In McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wash. 2d 299 , 738 P. 2d 254 (1987), the Washington Supreme Court explored "[w]hat role do public policy and the best interests of the child [standard] play in the allowance of paternity actions brought under the ... | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Holder v. Polanski
green
1 sentence2022In Bisbing, the Court interpreted "cause" under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 as requiring the petitioning parent to satisfy the best-interests analysis set forth in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c), "supplemented by other factors as appropriate." Id. at 338 (citing N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Div. of Youth & Family v. Bgs
green
1 sentence2021Indeed, defendant has been available to parent nine-year-old Alan only during the fifteen-month period between April 2014 and July 2015, and, according to defendant's statement to the Division caseworker, during that time Wendy had custody of, and cared for, Alan while defendant lived with them.10 A child's unfulfilled need for a permanent home constitutes harm under the first prong of the best-interests standard, B.G.S., 291 N.J. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kinsella v. Kinsella
green
1 sentence2021In deciding custody, the court must consider at least the fourteen statutory factors we have A-2908-18 23 already recited, N.J.S.A. 9:2-4(c), but the best-interests analysis is superimposed on the statutory analysis, Kinsella, 150 N.J. at 317 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. H.R.
green
1 sentence2019We pause to address the trial judge's descriptions of Bill's argument regarding the Division's consideration of S.R. as a "red herring." Those comments were unfortunate because they may be construed to mean that the judge ignored the statutory obligation to consider alternatives to termination as part of the Family Part's analysis under the third prong of the best-interests standard, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(3); H.R., 431 N.J. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. R.L.M.
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 134 , 160 A.3d 714 . 2018Id. at 134 , 160 A.3d 714 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Moriarty v. Bradt
green
2 sentences2016We recognize that grandparents seeking visitation are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to make the showing of harm that Moriarty requires and, if that showing is made, a visitation schedule under the best-interests factors prescribed by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 9:2 — 7.1. 177 N.J. at 117-18 , 827 A.2d 203 . 2016We recognize that grandparents seeking visitation are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to make the showing of harm that Moriarty requires and, if that showing is made, a visitation schedule under the best-interests factors prescribed by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 9:2 — 7.1. 177 N.J. at 117-18 , 827 A.2d 203 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Beck v. Beck green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Poluhovich v. Pellerano green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Ronan v. Adely green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. M.M. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Lippincott v. Lippincott green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Richards v. Collins green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| In Re Quinlan green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Matter of Conroy green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.