Congratulations to Michelle!

We are a full service family law and mediation firm.  Our attorneys offer sound legal counsel, strategy, and experience to effectively handle a wide range of family law disputes on behalf of our clients.  Whether you are facing divorce, a child custody dispute, or need an advocate to enforce a court order, we know how to take action and follow through to protect your immediate and long-term interests.  Our attorneys offer legal services throughout northwest New Jersey.  Contact us for more information and to schedule your free consultation.

Faith A. Ullmann & Associates is comprised of partner Faith A. Ullmann, Esq., and associate Michelle L. Olenick, Esq.  Faith,  and Michelle offer years of legal experience in matrimonial and family law matters.

In J.M.S. v. J.W., A-0938-10, the adoptive parents had initially allowed the paternal grandparents to visit with the adopted children, but later terminated visitation.  The trial court dismissed the paternal grandparents’ application for visitation with the two adopted children, claiming that New Jersey’s Adoption Act logically terminated the biological grandparents’ rights as well.  N.J.S.A. 9:3-37.  The trial court also relied on the case of In re Adoption of a Child by W.P., 163 N.J. 158 (2000), where the New Jersey Supreme Court found a conflict between the Adoption Act and the grandparent visitation statute (N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1) as public policy on adoption terminates the biological parent’s rights, thereby precluding application of the grandparent visitation statute when the child is adopted by nonrelatives.

The Appellate Division, however, found that the trial court erred in its application of W.P. to the case at bar, and found that the difference in the two cases revolved around whether the children had been adopted by relatives or nonrelatives.  In this case, the children had been adopted by a cousin of their biological mother.  The Appellate Division noted that the biological grandparents had regular visitation with the adopted children for years, until recently when the adoptive parents terminated visits due to the grandparents’ criticisms of the adoptive parents child-rearing methods.  The Court also noted that the children’s biological father obtained a post-adoption order allowing him periodic visits with the children for several years.  Therefore, several biological family members had visitation with the children for years and, in fact, the adoptive parents were also biologically related to the children.  The Appellate Division also looked to the state’s Adoption Act and found that no provision of the Adoption Act expressly prohibits this type of contact.  In sum, the facts were very different from a W.P.-type adoption where the child was adopted by a nonrelative and had no contact with biological relatives.  The Appellate Division remanded the case back to the trial court.