Pace v. DSCYF
598, 2016
| Del. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- In June 2015 the State filed a dependency/neglect petition and the Family Court found probable cause due to both parents' incarceration.
- At adjudication on July 10, 2015, Father stipulated that the Child remained dependent.
- A reunification plan was ordered requiring drug treatment, a support network, mental health evaluation and treatment, employment, a parent aide, and a parenting class.
- In May 2016 the court granted the State’s motion to change the goal from reunification to termination of parental rights (TPR)/adoption.
- The TPR petition was filed September 13, 2016 and the hearing occurred October 25, 2016.
- The Family Court found clear and convincing evidence of failure to plan, that reunification efforts were reasonable, and that termination was in the Child’s best interests; Father had not seen the Child in about two and a half years and remained incarcerated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there clear and convincing evidence of failure to plan? | Pace argues the evidence does not prove failure to plan. | DSCYF contends there is ample evidence of failure to plan. | Yes; evidence supports failure to plan. |
| Were the State’s reunification efforts reasonable? | Pace asserts efforts were not reasonably undertaken. | DSCYF maintains efforts were bona fide and reasonable. | Reasonable efforts found. |
| Is termination in the Child’s best interest? | Pace contends termination is not in the Child’s best interest. | DSCYF argues termination serves the Child’s best interests. | Termination is in the Child’s best interest. |
| Did the trial court correctly apply the law and standards of review? | Pace challenges application of the statutory standards. | DSCYF asserts proper application and standard of review. | Law properly applied; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Div. of Fam. Services, 988 A.2d 435 (Del. 2010) (standard of review and evidence sufficiency in TPR cases)
- Powell v. DSCYF, 963 A.2d 724 (Del. 2008) (clear and convincing evidence standard; termination framework)
- Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533 (Del. 2000) (grounds for termination and best interests considerations)
- In re Hanks, 553 A.2d 1171 (Del. 1989) (additional factors for best interests and termination analysis)