217 A.3d 701
Del.2019Background
- Child (b. 2008) was removed in June 2017 after first responders found Mother extremely intoxicated with the Child in her care; DFS obtained ex parte custody and filed a dependency petition.
- Mother had a history of bipolar disorder and chronic alcohol abuse; DFS developed a reunification case plan (substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, stable housing and employment, resolution of legal issues, parenting classes).
- Mother made intermittent progress (periods of sobriety, treatment, employment and housing) but relapsed by mid‑2018; visits were suspended after intoxication incidents; maternal relatives in the Bronx were potential placement resources but ICPC approval was not obtained.
- DFS filed for termination of parental rights (TPR) for failure to plan on Aug. 22, 2018; TPR hearings occurred Nov. 19 and Dec. 5, 2018.
- Family Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to plan under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5), and that terminating parental rights was in the Child’s best interests under 13 Del. C. § 722; it granted DFS’s petition.
- Mother appealed; counsel filed a Rule 26.1(c) no‑merit brief and moved to withdraw. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied any arguable merit in the appeal; counsel’s withdrawal was deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the Child’s best interests (§ 722) | Mother: termination not in Child’s best interests; she had improved and sought treatment | DFS/Child’s attorney: Child suffered parentification; needed permanency; Mother’s instability harmed Child | Affirmed — Court found seven of eight § 722 factors favored termination; termination was in Child’s best interests |
| Whether statutory ground (failure to plan, § 1103(a)(5)) was proven by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: she was complying with treatment and case plan | DFS: Mother repeatedly failed to maintain sobriety, stable housing, or employment; she failed to plan for Child | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported the failure‑to‑plan finding |
| Whether Family Court erred in factual findings or abused discretion (e.g., placement with grandmother) | Mother: court misread record; should have placed Child with maternal grandmother | DFS: record supports findings; ICPC approval for grandmother’s placement was not secured | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; factual findings were supported; ICPC prevented immediate placement with grandmother |
| Whether the Supreme Court may consider Mother’s new claims of stability on appeal | Mother: asks the Court to consider new claims of sobriety, housing, employment | DFS: appeal is limited to the trial record; new claims not preserved below | Held — Court declined to consider new, post‑trial claims; appellate review limited to trial record |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. DFS, 988 A.2d 435 (Del. 2010) (standard of review: legal rulings de novo; limited factual review)
- Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533 (Del. 2000) (describes statutory framework and grounds for TPR)
- Powell v. DSCYF, 963 A.2d 724 (Del. 2008) (burden on petitioner to prove statutory ground and best interests by clear and convincing evidence)
- Delaware Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphily, 703 A.2d 1202 (Del. 1997) (appellate courts review only matters presented to trial court)