Case Title: Jacks v. DFS & Child Advocate

Citation: 

Docket Number: 497, 2008

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
LINDA JACKS,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  No. 497, 2008 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
) 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  Court Below:  Family Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for New Castle County 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, )  File No. 08-02-03TN 
and OFFICE OF THE CHILD  
) 
ADVOCATE, 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Petitioner Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
) 
 
Submitted:  March 25, 2009 
Decided:  May 14, 2009 
Corrected:  May 19, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Family Court.  AFFIRMED. 
 
 
Kelly J. Sasso, Wilmington, Delaware for appellant. 
 
 
Theresa A. Sedivec, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for 
appellee. 
 
 
Nicholas M. Krayer, Office of the Child Advocate, Wilmington, Delaware 
for Office of the Child Advocate. 
 
 
 
 
 
STEELE, Chief Justice: 
 
 
 
2 
Linda Jacks appeals from an order of the Family Court terminating her 
parental rights in her four children.1  On appeal, Jacks claims that the Family Court 
abused its discretion by finding that terminating her parental rights was in the best 
interests of her children.  We find no merit to Jacks’ argument and affirm.  
FACT AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
Linda Jacks is the biological mother of four children—B.J., R.H., D.J., and 
N.J.  Jacks’ eldest child, B.J., was born prematurely in 1998.  Dr. Shirley Klein, 
B.J.’s pediatrician, became concerned about B.J.’s welfare when Jacks failed to 
bring her for checkups.  As a result, Dr. Klein could not track B.J.’s weight and 
overall development, a requirement for the proper care of premature infants.  R.H., 
Jacks’ second child who was born on March 3, 2000, also was not regularly taken 
for medical appointments.  Dr. Klein suspected that R.H. was not receiving 
adequate nutrition because she seemed extremely hungry and drank large amounts 
of formula during the appointments Jacks actually attended.  Dr. Klein referred the 
family to Public Health authorities so that a nurse could check on the children at 
home twice a week.  Around this time, an anonymous caller placed the first of 
eleven hotline referrals concerning Jacks to the Division of Family Services.  
 
During the summer of 2000, R.H. continued to lose weight.  Dr. Klein 
admitted R.H. to the hospital to determine the cause of R.H.’s failure to thrive.  
                                                 
1  
The children and their respective birth dates are: B.J., 1/17/98; R.H., 3/3/00; D.J., 
6/16/01; and N.J., 7/8/05.  
 
3 
R.H. steadily gained weight during her eight days in the hospital, which suggested 
to Dr. Klein that R.H. was not receiving enough food at home.  Dr. Klein ordered 
numerous tests to rule out any organic causes for the child’s weight loss.  The 
results of those tests supported Dr. Klein’s opinion that R.H. simply was not being 
fed enough.2  Dr. Klein recognized that R.H. gained substantial weight during two 
hospitalizations. 
During this time, three callers referred the family to the DFS hotline.3  These 
referrals reported that:  the children failed to thrive; there was not enough formula 
in the home; the children were being neglected; and R.H. was possibly being 
physically abused.  DFS assigned a Public Health Nutritionist, Ms. Duchesneau, to 
the family.  Duchesneau witnessed the children not receiving enough formula, not 
having their prescriptions filled, Jacks not keeping food journals when asked, Jacks 
failing to apply for WIC benefits, and Jacks refusing to get out of bed when 
transportation to medical appointments arrived.  Additionally, Duchesneau visited 
the home many times and witnessed B.J. and R.H. sitting alone, unsupervised, and 
without stimulation.  
                                                 
2  
Dr. Klein testified that R.H. had some health issues that may have contributed to her 
failure to thrive (including disagreement with her formula and colitis), but she felt that these 
issues could only explain some of her weight problems.   
 
3  
The DFS Hotline received calls in June, July, and August of 2000.  
  
 
4 
 
Jacks’ third child, D.J., was born June 16, 2001.  No doctor examined D.J. 
until he was three months old.  Dr. Klein only saw D.J. once in the first thirteen 
months of his life.  D.J. steadily fell to the bottom of the growth charts, missed 
immunizations, and was not taken to follow up appointments regarding the 
possibility that he may have cerebral palsy.  By April 2003, the family had been 
the subject of eight DFS hotline referrals.  The eighth referral suggested that the 
children were being physically abused.  During one of R.H.’s hospitalizations, Dr. 
Allan DeJong, a child abuse expert, examined R.H, and found marks indicating 
healed wounds that had been purposefully inflicted.  Because of the continuous 
reports of neglect and the evidence of possible abuse, all three children were 
removed from the home in April of 2003.  
 
The children immediately began to thrive in their foster care placements.  
Each child gained significant weight and exhibited improvements in his or her 
developmental abilities.  Jacks did not visit the children while they were in foster 
care, or otherwise plan for their return.  After spending a year in foster care, the 
children were ultimately placed with relatives, but those relatives returned the 
children to Jacks shortly after she gave birth to her fourth child, N.J., in July of 
2005.   
Jack’s took N.J. to a different pediatrician, Dr. Alouf.  That doctor expressed 
concerns similar to Dr. Klein’s – that N.J. failed to gain weight, was not taken for 
 
5 
blood work, and missed several medical appointments.  Dr. Klein also reported that 
once back in their mother’s care, all of the children again began to miss medical 
appointments.  D.J. was not taken to follow up appointments regarding dental 
work, hearing difficulties, and ADHD symptoms.   
DFS received a ninth hotline referral in November 2006, reporting that R.H. 
had lost weight since returning to her mother’s care.  When the DFS investigated 
these allegations, the children reported that their mother beat them and that they 
missed significant amounts of school.  By November 2006, B.J. had seven 
unexcused absences, R.H. had thirteen unexcused absences, and D.J. had seventeen 
unexcused absences.  DFS also found the home to be filthy.   
Because of their abuse and neglect, the children were again placed in foster 
care in November 27, 2006.  They remained in foster care only a few days before 
being placed with their maternal grandparents.  During this time, the children’s 
maternal grandmother entrusted their care mainly to their mother.  During the 
remainder of the 2006-2007 school year, the children continued to miss significant 
amounts of school and medical appointments.  Despite these facts, the children 
were place back with their mother in March of 2007.   
DFS received a tenth hotline referral in April of 2007 in which the caller 
described numerous scratches and marks on D.J.  After an investigation, DFS 
allowed the children to remain in the home.  In August 2007, DFS received the 
 
6 
eleventh hotline referral.  The caller reported that D.J., now six years old, had been 
playing with a lighter and set a comforter on fire.  B.J. and R.H. reportedly 
attempted to wake their mother during the fire, but were unsuccessful.  DFS 
ultimately removed the children a third time because of a lack of electricity in the 
home and Jacks’ recent apartment eviction.   
Again, the children improved significantly in foster care.  B.H and R.H. 
improved academically and gained twelve to fifteen pounds each.  N.J. gained 
seven to eight pounds since placement and began calling her foster father “daddy.”  
D.J. also adjusted well to his foster care placement.  During their placement, Jacks 
was relatively uninvolved in the children’s care.  She did not attend their mental 
health treatments or regularly visit them.  
On February 13, 2008, DFS petitioned to terminate the parental rights of 
both Jacks and the children’s fathers.4  The Family Court heard arguments and 
testimony during the period April to July of 2008.  In August 2008, the Court 
ordered the termination of Jacks’ parental rights.  Jacks appeals from that ruling.  
DISCUSSION 
The Family Court found that Jacks had failed to plan for the children’s 
physical, mental, or emotional needs and development, and after considering the 
best interests of the children, terminated Jacks’ parental rights.  On appeal, Jacks 
                                                 
4  
The fathers are not part of this appeal. 
 
 
7 
claims that the Family Court erred in applying the “best interests of the child” test.  
DFS and the Office of the Child Advocate respond that the Family Court’s 
decision has record support and is the product of an orderly and logical reasoning 
process.  
It is well settled law that the Family Court must conduct a two step analysis 
when adjudicating a termination petition.5  First, the court must determine whether 
DFS has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the grounds for 
termination listed in 13 Del. C. § 1103.6  Second, the court must determine whether 
the decision is in the best interests of the child by weighing the factors found in 13 
Del. C. § 722.7  A determination of the child’s best interests must be established by 
clear and convincing evidence.8   
                                                 
5  
Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth, and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 
(Del. 2008).   
 
6  
Id.  
 
7  
13 Del. C. § 722 provides, in pertinent part: 
(a) The Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in 
accordance with the best interests of the child.  In determining the best interest of the 
child, the Court shall consider all relevant factors including:  
1. The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential 
arrangements;  
2. The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian(s) and residential arrangements;  
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents, 
grandparents, siblings, person cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife 
with a parent of the child, any other residents of the household or persons who may 
significantly affect the child’s best interests;  
4. The child’s adjustment to his or her home, school and community;  
5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;  
6. Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to 
their child under § 701 of this title;  
 
8 
Here, Jacks does not dispute that DFS established grounds for termination 
under 13 Del. C. § 1103.  Jacks appeals only the Family Court’s determination that 
terminating her parental rights was in the children’s best interests.  She claims that 
the Family Court abused its discretion by finding that three of the 13 Del. C.  § 722 
factors were either neutral or weighed against her.  Those factors are: (1) the 
wishes of the child as to his or her custodian and residential arrangement; (2) the 
child’s adjustment to his or her home, school and community; and (3) the mental 
and physical health of all individuals involved.  With those factors weighed in her 
favor, Jacks argues, the termination petition should have been denied.  DFS and 
OCA respond that the record evidence supports the Family Court’s order, which 
was the product of an orderly and logical reasoning process, but DFS and OCA do 
not directly address Jacks’ arguments that the court improperly weighted those 
three § 722 factors.   
We review Family Court decisions where the court has correctly applied the 
law for an abuse of discretion.9  “This Court will not substitute its own opinion for 
the inferences and deductions made by the Trial Judge where those deductions are 
                                                                                                                                                             
7. Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and 
8. The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household …. 
 
8  
Powell, 963 A.2d at 731. 
 
9  
Id. 
  
 
9 
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive 
process.”10 
 
This case presents two issues.  First, did the Family Court correctly weigh 
the three factors that are the subject of this appeal?  Second, is there an alternative 
basis upon which we may affirm the Family Court’s termination order?  Because 
we conclude that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in weighing those 
factors, we do not reach the second issue. 
A. The Record Supports the Family Court’s Finding That the Wishes of the 
Children Was a Neutral Factor. 
 
 The Family Court found that the wishes of Jacks’ children were a neutral 
factor in evaluating their best interests.  The court based that finding on its 
interview of Jacks’ three eldest children.11  B.J. and R.H. told the Family Court that 
they wanted to live with their mother but were also agreeable to a foster or 
adoptive home.  D.J. said that he wanted to stay with his foster parents and that he 
disliked his mother’s home because it had mice.  When asked by the court what he 
liked about his Mother’s home, D.J. responded that he enjoyed his friends, his 
bike, and his Grandmother.  Weighing the facts that B.J. and R.H. appeared open 
to either returning to their mother or remaining in foster care, that D.J. was 
                                                 
10  
Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983).  
 
11  
The Family Court did not interview N.J. because she was too young.  
 
 
10 
emphatic about not returning to his Mother’s, and that N.J. was too young to be 
interviewed, the Family Court found this factor as neutral.   
Jacks argues that the children’s wishes weighed against termination because 
D.J. stated that he liked his Grandmother and that, if the children were returned to 
her, they would reside with her at their Grandmother’s home.  Jacks also argues 
that the children’s wishes weighed against termination because B.J. and R.H. 
expressed a desire to be reunited with her, D.J. expressed affection for his 
grandmother, and the termination would sever that tie.  Jacks, however, has not 
shown that the Family Court’s determination was not the product of an orderly and 
logical reasoning process.  With two children open to reunification or remaining in 
foster care and one child wanting to remain with his foster parents, the Family 
Court’s finding that this factor was neutral is supported by the evidence.   
B. The Record Supports the Family Court’s Finding That the Children’s 
Adjustment to Their New Homes, School, and Community Weighed in 
Favor of Termination.  
 
 
The Family Court found that all four children had adjusted well to their 
foster care settings, which weighed against Jacks.  Although B.J. and R.H. had 
recently been moved to a new foster care placement, the court considered 
adjustment to their previous foster home placement.  B.J. and R.H.’s first foster 
care mother testified that upon their arrival in her home they were unstructured and 
screamed, fought, and were disrespectful.  In response, the foster mother set a bed 
 
11 
and eating schedule, and imposed appropriate discipline.  The Family Court found 
that although the foster mother found their behavior challenging, they had 
improved and the foster mother believed they were adoptable.  
 
The Family Court also found that both D.J. and N.J. had adjusted very well 
in their new homes.  D.J. appeared very happy and wished to remain in his current 
home.  N.J. had developed a strong bond with her foster parents and had no further 
eating or health problems.  The Family Court found that although changes in the 
children’s current homes were possible, those settings still offered more 
permanency than anything Jacks could provide. 
 
Jacks claims that this factor should have been weighed against termination.  
Jacks urged that at the time of the termination hearing, she had been living with the 
children’s maternal grandmother for ten months, and that if the children were 
returned to her she would continue this living arrangement.  She argues that the 
Family Court should have considered her current stable living arrangement and the 
fact that her mother’s home had been renovated to accommodate the children.  She 
also claims that there was no evidence that she had neglected their schooling when 
the children had previously lived with her and the maternal grandmother.  That 
factual claim is not before us because Jacks never appealed from the Family 
Court’s contrary factual determination.  Her substantive argument lacks merit.   
 
12 
 
In fact, the Family Court did consider Jacks’ living situation.  The court 
stated “[i]f reunification is pursued, the children would eventually return to 
maternal grandmother’s home where they have resided previous.  However . . . the 
Court is not satisfied they would stay there based upon Mother’s history.”  While 
the children resided with the maternal grandmother from 2006 to 2007, they 
frequently missed school and medical appointments.  Furthermore, Jacks had 
moved into and out of the maternal grandmother’s home numerous times 
throughout the children’s lives.  Those facts support the Family Court’s finding 
that the children had adjusted well to foster care and that foster care offered them 
greater stability than would reunification with Jacks.  Jacks has not shown that the 
Family Court’s findings were not the product of a logical and orderly reasoning 
process. 
C.   The Record Supports the Family Court’s Finding That the Mental and 
Physical Health of all Individuals Involved Weighed in Favor of 
Termination.  
 
 
Finally, the Family Court held that the children’s mental health weighed 
against reunification with Jacks.  The court based that determination on the three 
eldest children’s significant mental issues that required ongoing treatment.  The 
Family Court discussed at length the needs of each child and each child’s current 
treatment regiments.  The children are currently in counseling and on medication 
for issues ranging from ADHD to depression and anxiety.  Given Jacks’ past 
 
13 
inabilities to address the children’s medical needs, the Family Court weighed this 
factor against Jacks.   
 
Jacks claims that this factor should have been weighed against termination.  
She relies on: (1) the Family Court’s finding that there were no mental or physical 
issues with her, the children’s fathers, or the maternal grandmother; (2) that her 
three eldest children had all made progress while in counseling (presumably 
implying either that their needs had been met or that she could build upon that 
progress); and (3) that the children’s mental health has deteriorated since they 
entered the foster care system. 
 
These arguments are without merit.  At the time of the termination hearing, 
Jacks had a lengthy history of grossly neglecting her children’s physical and 
mental needs.  She offers only unsupported assertions that she was involved in 
addressing her children’s mental health issues, and implies that she would continue 
to do so if reunited with her children.  Furthermore, her claim that the children had 
made significant progress in therapy—treatment which began after DFS placed the 
children in foster care—is clearly inconsistent with her claim that the children’s 
mental health deteriorated after they entered foster care.  Jacks has failed to 
indicate how the Family Court’s finding was not the product of a logical and 
orderly reasoning process.  
 
14 
CONCLUSION 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the Family Court 
terminating Jacks’ parental rights.