14 A.3d 507
Del.2011Background
- Nathan, a dependent child, was removed from parental custody after his three-month-old twin sister suffocated; DFS gained custody.
- Mother and Father pled or stipulated to Nathan’s dependency and engaged in reunification plans, but custody remained with DSCYF.
- DFS moved to change the goal to concurrent planning for reunification or termination of parental rights, leading to termination petitions.
- Family Court found both parents failed to adequately plan for Nathan’s physical and emotional needs and trajectory toward reunification.
- The court ultimately terminated parental rights, determining it was in Nathan’s best interest, with Nathan thriving in a foster home bonded to a half-brother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incarceration was considered in 'failure to plan' analysis | Brown and Roberts contend incarceration should be considered in planning failure. | Court relied on finances, housing, substance abuse, and criminal history, not incarceration. | Incarceration not dispositive; plan deficiencies established failure to plan. |
| Whether parents reasonably capable of reunification and completed plan elements | Parents were reasonably capable and had substantially completed plan elements. | Record shows ongoing failure to complete key plan elements and discharge responsibilities. | Court properly found failure to plan and no substantial completion. |
| Whether termination was in Nathan's best interests under the best-interest factors | Termination not necessary; best interests weigh toward reunification. | Best-interests factors support termination due to instability and risk. | Six of eight factors favored termination; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Dep't of Servs. for Children, Youth & Their Families, 963 A.2d 724 (Del. 2008) (supreme review standard and applicability to termination analysis)
- In re Stevens, 652 A.2d 18 (Del. 1995) (best interests and evidence standard in termination cases)
- In re Max G.W., 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845 (Wis. 2006) (incarceration-based unfitness not sole basis; focus on parenting and child)
- Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533 (Del. 2000) (dual inquiries for termination; clear and convincing standard)