Gibson v. DSCYF and Barnes
604, 2016
| Del. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Mother Karen Gibson (pseudonym) is parent of Sandy (b. 2009) and twins Ivy and Israel (b. 2012); DSCYF obtained custody March 2015 for allegations including physical abuse of Sandy and medical neglect of the twins.
- Children were removed after Sandy presented with extensive bruising allegedly inflicted by Gibson’s partner, Mr. R; the twins had complex medical needs and missed appointments while in Gibson’s care.
- Gibson stipulated to dependency, agreed to a case plan (housing, parenting, domestic violence/anger management, mental health/substance evaluations, medical appointment attendance, visitation), but repeatedly failed to complete key elements.
- Paternal grandparents petitioned for permanent guardianship of Sandy; maternal grandparents sought guardianship of the twins (denied). DSCYF sought termination of parental rights (TPR) for the twins.
- Family Court granted permanent guardianship of Sandy to the paternal grandparents and terminated Gibson’s parental rights to the twins, finding (by clear and convincing evidence) failure to plan, statutory grounds under 13 Del. C. §1103(a), best interests under §722, and that DSCYF made reasonable reunification efforts. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Court erred in granting paternal grandparents permanent guardianship of Sandy | Gibson argued guardianship/TPR findings were not supported by clear and convincing evidence and not in Sandy’s best interest | DSCYF and grandparents argued statutory grounds met, guardians are suitable, and guardianship is in child’s best interest | Affirmed: Court found clear and convincing evidence of failure to plan and best-interest factors favored guardianship; grandparents suitable |
| Whether Family Court erred in terminating Gibson’s parental rights to the twins (failure to plan) | Gibson contended she did enough to plan and reunify | DSCYF argued Gibson failed to complete case plan, missed medical appointments/visits, had domestic violence and criminal history concerns | Affirmed: Court found clear and convincing evidence of failure to plan under §1103(a) and that TPR was in twins’ best interest |
| Whether DSCYF made reasonable efforts to reunify the family | Gibson asserted DSCYF’s efforts were insufficient | DSCYF showed it provided a detailed case plan, referrals, and services; Gibson frequently failed to engage | Affirmed: Court concluded DSCYF made reasonable reunification efforts |
| Whether best-interest analysis under 13 Del. C. §722 was properly applied | Gibson argued the court misapplied/overweighted negative factors | DSCYF and guardians argued the statutory §722 factors (adjustment, health, relationships, domestic violence, criminal history) supported guardianship/TPR | Affirmed: Court performed section-by-section §722 analysis and found multiple factors favored guardianship/TPR |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Dep’t. of Servs. For Children, Youth and their Families, 963 A.2d 724 (Del. 2008) (two-step TPR analysis and standard of review for Family Court findings)
- Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276 (Del. 1983) (appellate deference to trial court inferences supported by record)
- Matter of Burns, 519 A.2d 638 (Del. 1986) (Child Welfare Act and related statutory compliance in parental-rights proceedings)
- Arthur-Lawrence v. Div. of Family Servs., 2005 (Del. 2005) (referenced for standard that factual findings will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous)