Sampson v. DSCYF
175, 2017
| Del. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- DSCYF filed a petition to substantiate Ronald Sampson (Father) for sexual abuse of his then-seven-year-old daughter with Down Syndrome and sought placement on the Child Protection Registry (Level IV).
- CAC forensic interviews of the Daughter and her brother, plus testimony from the Daughter’s teacher, school nurse, a social worker, and the Mother were admitted; CAC interview of the Daughter included an allegation the Father "licked her butt."
- At the November 22, 2016 substantiation hearing the Family Court Commissioner denied the Father’s motion for appointment of counsel, conducted the hearing, and found by a preponderance of the evidence that the Father sexually abused the Daughter and placed him on Level IV.
- The Family Court reviewed and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision on March 21, 2017; this appeal followed.
- The Court considered (1) whether denial of appointed counsel violated due process under the Mathews v. Eldridge framework and Delaware precedent; and (2) whether the evidence (including the Daughter’s CAC interview) was sufficient for substantiation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DSCYF/Family Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of appointed counsel in substantiation hearing violated due process | Father: his private interest in parent-child relationship and registry consequences required appointed counsel | Court/DSCYF: substantiation is civil with different stakes than termination; Father had notice, time to prepare, and help from the Commissioner; father had counsel in related termination proceedings | Denial did not violate due process under Mathews balancing; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether evidence supported substantiation (sexual abuse) by preponderance of evidence | Father: evidence was insufficient and largely child hearsay; CAC interview unreliable; no criminal charges; supervised visits precluded abuse | DSCYF: CAC interview admitted under 13 Del. C. §724(d)(2), corroborating testimony from school staff and social worker supported finding | Court affirmed sufficiency: CAC interview deemed trustworthy and admissible; testimony supported finding by preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process does not always require appointed counsel for parents in termination-type proceedings)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (framework for balancing interests under due process)
- Watson v. Div. of Family Servs., 813 A.2d 1101 (Del. 2002) (Delaware application of due process and counsel-appointment principles in family services contexts)
- Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750 (Del. 2006) (standards for appellate review of Family Court factual findings and conclusions of law)
- Pace v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth & Their Families, 963 A.2d 724 (Del. 2008) (distinguishing burden and consequences between substantiation and termination proceedings)