Case Title: Cohen v. DSCYF/DFS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 618, 2018

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2019-09-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TANYA COHEN,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below–
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES 
FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH 
AND THEIR 
FAMILIES/DIVISION OF 
FAMILY SERVICES, CHLOE 
M. FRANKS, CONNOR 
ABBOTT, MARK MILLER, 
KADEN MOORE,  
 
Respondents Below– 
Appellees. 
 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 618, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File Nos. CN17-03201 
§                  CN05-02018 
§                  CN17-03202 
§                  CN17-06343 
§ 
§  Petition Nos. 17-14747 
§                        17-14751 
§                        17-14749 
§                        17-35290 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 9, 2019 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 23, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it 
appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Tanya Cohen (“the Maternal Grandmother”), 
filed this appeal from an order of the Family Court dated December 6, 2018.  
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 7(d). 
 
2 
The Family Court’s order denied the Maternal Grandmother’s petitions for 
guardianship of five of her grandchildren. After careful consideration, we 
find no error in the Family Court’s judgment.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that the appellee Chloe M. Franks (“the 
Mother”) is the mother to six children: L.F. (born 2004), Z.F. (born 2006), 
S.F. (born 2010), B.F. (born 2009), M.F. (born 2014), and K.F. (born 2017).  
The Maternal Grandmother filed petitions for guardianship of L.F., Z.F., 
S.F., and M.F. in May of 2017 after the children came into the custody of the 
Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families/Division of 
Family Services (“DFS”).2  The Maternal Grandmother filed a petition for 
guardianship of K.F. after his birth later in 2017.  On June 6, 2018, the 
petitions were stayed because approval for the children’s placement with the 
Maternal Grandmother under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of 
Children (“ICPC”) remained outstanding and the Family Court was poised 
to hear DFS’s petitions to terminate the parental rights of each of the 
children’s parents. 
                                                 
2 The Maternal Grandmother obtained guardianship over B.F. in 2009.  That guardianship 
remained in place until the May 17, 2017 preliminary protective hearing in the Mother’s 
dependency/neglect proceedings when the Family Court found that the Maternal 
Grandmother had abdicated her responsibilities to B.F. as his guardian when she left B.F. 
in the Mother’s custody.  Because the Maternal Grandmother did not realize her 
guardianship had been terminated, she did not file a separate petition for guardianship for 
B.F. after the May 17, 2017 hearing. 
 
3 
(3) 
The Family Court held a hearing on the Maternal 
Grandmother’s petitions on November 9, 2018.  The Family Court heard 
testimony from the Maternal Grandmother; two of the Maternal 
Grandmother’s sisters, one of whom also had a petition for guardianship for 
two of the children pending; the Mother; and a DFS treatment worker. 
(4) 
The undisputed testimony established that the DFS-initiated 
ICPC request for placement of the children with the Maternal Grandmother 
in Pennsylvania had not yet been approved at the time of the hearing.  The 
Family Court heard testimony that the Maternal Grandmother had been a 
victim of domestic abuse and sexual abuse for which she had not received 
treatment.  The Family Court also heard testimony that the Maternal 
Grandmother had guardianship over three of the Mother’s children at 
various points in time and that the children had alleged they suffered from 
physical abuse while in her custody.  DFS opposed the Maternal 
Grandmother’s petitions because, among other reasons, the Maternal 
Grandmother did not view herself as a victim of domestic violence, despite 
the fact that her paramour had recently pointed a gun at her; she had not 
received treatment for sexual abuse she suffered as a child; and she relied 
upon her paramour for housing and income.   
 
4 
(5) 
In reviewing the Maternal Grandmother’s petitions for 
guardianship, the Family Court applied the legal standard set forth in 13 Del. 
C.  § 2330.  Under § 2330(a)(2), the Family Court must establish, after a 
hearing on the merits, that the petitioner has established by a preponderance 
of the evidence that (i) the child is dependent, neglected or abused and the 
reasons therefore; and (ii) it is in the best interests of the child for the 
guardianship to be granted.  The Family Court found the first prong of the 
analysis was satisfied as evidenced by its December 6, 2018 order finding 
clear and convincing evidence that the children were dependent in their 
parents’ care and terminating their parental rights in the children.3  The 
Court then considered the best interests of the children factors set out in 13 
Del. C. § 722.4 
                                                 
3 The Mother appealed the Family Court’s order terminating her parental rights and we 
affirmed. Franks v. DSCYF, 2019 WL 4512028 (Del. Sep. 19, 2019).  
4 The best interest factors include: (i) the wishes of the parents regarding the child's 
custody and residential arrangements; (ii) the wishes of the child regarding the custodians 
and residential arrangements; (iii) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with 
parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and 
wife with a parent of the child, and any other residents of the household or persons who 
may significantly affect the child's best interests; (iv) the child's adjustment to home, 
school, and community; (v) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; 
(vi) past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to 
the child under 13 Del. C. § 701; (vii) evidence of domestic violence; and (viii) the 
criminal history of any party or any resident of the household.  13 Del. C. § 722(a).  Here, 
the Mother and M.F.’s father consented to the Maternal Grandmother’s petitions for 
guardianship.  The Family Court must still engage in a best interests analysis if the child 
is in DFS custody, even if the parents consent to the guardianship. 13 Del. C. § 
2330(a)(1). 
 
 
5 
(6) 
In considering the evidence, the Family Court found that only 
the Mother’s wishes weighed in favor of granting the petitions.  However, 
the Family Court did not find the Mother’s testimony that the Maternal 
Grandmother was her “best friend” to be credible and concluded the 
Mother’s wishes factor weighed only slightly in favor of granting the 
petitions.  The Family Court found the remaining factors, as well as the 
children’s history in the Maternal Grandmother’s care, weighed against 
granting the petitions.  The children had not visited with the Maternal 
Grandmother since coming into DFS custody because the children’s 
therapists had not recommended visits.  The court also considered the 
children’s comments to the court.  Of the three older children who spoke 
with the court, only S.F., who did not remember the Maternal Grandmother, 
expressed a desire to live with her.  The Family Court found the younger two 
children were unlikely to have any memory of the Maternal Grandmother 
due to their young ages.  After balancing the factors, the Family Court 
concluded that it was in the children’s best interests to deny the Maternal 
Grandmother’s petitions for guardianship. 
(7) 
Our appellate review of a Family Court guardianship decision 
includes a review of both the law and the facts.5  If the Family Court 
                                                 
5 Ogden v. Collins, 2010 WL 4816059, *5 (Del. Nov. 29, 2010). 
 
6 
correctly applied the law, we review for an abuse of discretion.6  We will not 
disturb the Family Court’s factual findings if those findings are supported by 
the record.7  If the determination of facts turns on the credibility of the 
witnesses who testified under oath in court, we will not substitute our 
opinion for that of the trial judge.8 
(8) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions 
on appeal and after a thorough review of the record, the Court has 
determined that this appeal should be affirmed on the basis of the Family 
Court's well-reasoned decision dated December 6, 2018.  It is clear that the 
trial judge considered the evidence under the appropriate legal standards and 
applied a logical deductive process in concluding that denying the Maternal 
Grandmother’s guardianship petitions was in the best interests of the 
children.  The Maternal Grandmother’s allegation on appeal that the Family 
Court judge’s alleged friendship with Chief Baylor—who testified at the 
Mother’s termination of parental rights (“TPR”) hearing—created a conflict 
of interest is not supported by the record.  Chief Baylor testified at the 
Mother’s TPR hearing about the Mother’s pending criminal charges and her 
cooperation with law enforcement officials.  The Family Court did not rely 
                                                 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
8 Id. 
 
7 
on this testimony in its decision denying the Maternal Grandmother’s 
petitions for guardianships.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice