Case Title: CASA v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 59, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CASA (Court Appointed Special 
) 
Advocate)  
 
 
 
)  No. 059, 2003 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
)  Court Below:  Family Court 
 
 
Appellant,  
 
)  of the State of Delaware in 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  and for Sussex County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  File No. CS01-03948 
DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR)  File No. CS01-03949 
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR )  File No. CS01-03744 
FAMILIES, DIVISION OF 
 
)  File No. CS02-03428 
FAMILY SERVICES, 
 
 
)  File No. CS02-03742 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  File No. CS02-03746 
 
 
Petitioner Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellee, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
JEANETTE V. JOHNSON and  
) 
ALONZO MORRIS, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Respondents Below, 
) 
 
 
Appellees,  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
BETTY TREHERNE and 
 
) 
AMOS TREHERNE, and 
 
) 
YVETTE GOSLEE, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Petitioners Below,  
) 
 
 
Appellees.  
 
) 
 
Submitted:  August 26, 2003 
Decided:  October 7, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Family Court.  AFFIRMED. 
 
 
Kristin S. Gibbons, Georgetown, Delaware, for appellant, CASA. 
 
 
2
 
Kathryn L. Welch, Department of the Attorney General, Georgetown, 
Delaware, for appellee, Division of Family Services. 
 
 
Bruce A. Rogers, Georgetown, Delaware, for appellee, Jeanette Johnson. 
 
 
Margaret R. Cooper of Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, Georgetown, 
Delaware, for respondent, Alonzo Morris. 
 
 
Yvette Goslee, Landover, Maryland, pro se. 
 
 
Amos and Betty Treherene, Laurel, Delaware, pro se. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STEELE, Justice: 
 
3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This is an appeal from two Orders of the Family Court of the State of 
Delaware in and for Sussex County granting legal guardianship of two minor 
children, Jane and Kay,1 to non-relative foster parents.  The Respondent-Appellant, 
a Court Appointed Special Advocate, raises two arguments on behalf of the 
children.  First, the CASA argues that a guardianship as defined in 13 Del. C. §§ 
2330 through 2340 (standard guardianship) does not constitute a legal guardianship 
contemplated by the Adoption and Safe Families Act.2  The CASA argues that a 
standard guardianship is not an appropriate permanency option in the absence of 
compelling reasons showing why a termination of parental rights and adoption is 
not in the children’s best interests.  Second, the CASA contends that the Family 
Court judge erred by not explicitly addressing the best interest factors enumerated 
in 13 Del. C. § 722 and that had he done so, he could fairly conclude only that a 
standard guardianship is not in the children’s best interest.  Because we find that 
the record supports the Family Court Judge’s conclusion that a standard 
guardianship is in the children’s best interest and that the legal status conferred by 
a standard guardianship satisfies the permanency requirements of ASFA, we 
AFFIRM. 
                                                 
1 To protect the identity of the minor children, the names used in the opinion are pseudonyms. 
SUPR. CT. R. 7 (d). 
2 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-679. 
 
4
I 
Alonzo W. Morris is the natural father of Jane, a female child born February 
1, 1993.  The natural father of Kay, a female child born August 23, 1996, is 
unknown.  Jeanette V. Johnson is the natural mother of both children.  On April 15, 
2001, the Division of Family Services seized the children after Family Court 
granted DFS’ emergency dependency/neglect petition.  Both mother and father 
were incarcerated at the time DFS seized the children.  DFS placed the children in 
the home of the mother’s family friends, Betty and Amos Treherne.  Soon after the 
placement, the Trehernes became licensed foster parents. 
Shortly after her release from prison, the mother found appropriate housing 
and DFS returned the children to her on a trial basis.  However, DFS removed the 
children after five weeks for various documented reasons including the mother’s 
continued unemployment and the children’s poor school attendance.  DFS returned 
the children from the mother to the Trehernes and the Trehernes filed a petition for 
a standard guardianship of both children.3  Before the Family Court-ordered 
permanency hearing set for June 21, 2
002 took place, DFS proposed a standard 
guardianship with the Trehernes as the most appropriate permanency plan.  All 
                                                 
3 The Trehernes were unable to file for permanent guardianship under 13 Del. C. §§ 2350 
through 2359 because they were not blood relatives. 
 
5
parties4 agreed with the DFS proposal, except the CASA.  Following additional 
briefing by the parties, the Family Court issued a Permanency Order granting 
guardianship to the Trehernes in two orders dated January 8, 2003 and January 14, 
2003.  The CASA appealed. 
II 
This Court's review of appeals from the Family Court extends to a review of 
the facts and law as well as to a review of the inferences and deductions made by 
the trial judge.5  This Court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly 
wrong and justice requires their overturn.6  Moreover, this Court will not substitute 
its own opinion for the inferences and deductions made by the trial judge where 
those inferences are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and 
logical deductive process.7  If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, the 
standard of review is abuse of discretion.8  Errors of law, however, are reviewed de 
novo.9   
                                                 
4 The mother and father supported the DFS proposal but opposed any attempt to terminate their 
parental rights.  The Trehernes supported the DFS proposal. Additionally, Yvette Goslee, the 
father’s aunt, supported the DFS proposal and agreed to have her petitions for guardianship of 
both children held in abeyance in the event that the Court refused to grant guardianship status to 
the Trehernes. 
5 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983) (citing Wife (J. F. V.) v. Husband (O. W. V., Jr.), 
402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979)). 
6 Id. 
7 Solis, 468 A.2d at 1279. 
8 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186 (Del. 1991). 
9 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 
 
6
 
III 
 
Upon its passage in 1997, ASFA mandated that a “child’s health and safety 
shall be the paramount concern,” and that the State should be making timely 
permanency decisions for children. 10   ASFA provides that a "legal guardian" is 
only one of several appropriate placement options for a Family Court to consider at 
a permanency hearing.11  ASFA defines the term “legal guardianship” as 
…a judicially created relationship between child and caretaker 
which is intended to be permanent and self sustaining as 
evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following 
parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, 
care and control of the person, custody of the person, and 
decisionmaking.  The term “legal guardian” means the 
caretaker in such a relationship. 12 
 
The language of ASFA further indicates that a court-ordered permanent placement 
living arrangement other than one of the enumerated options requires the State 
Agency to demonstrate compelling reasons why a termination of parental rights 
and adoption is not in the children’s best interests.13  A permanency plan that 
qualifies as a legal guardianship under ASFA would not require a demonstration of  
                                                 
10 42 U.S.C. §§620-679; Brown v. DFS, 803 A.2d 948, 953 (Del. 2002) (promoting timely 
decision-making on permanency matters by state foster care providers). 
11 42 U.S.C. §675 (5)(c). 
12 42 U.S.C. §675 (7). 
13 42 U.S.C. §675 (5)(c). 
 
7
compelling reasons why termination and adoption would not be i
n the children’s 
best interest. 
 
Delaware’s guardianship statute defines permanency as “the safe, stable and 
custodial environment in which a child is raised and the life-long relationship that 
child establishes with a nurturing caregiver.”14 The definition applies to both the 
standard guardianship and the permanent guardianship provisions of Chapter 23 of 
Title 13.  When committed non-relative foster parents wish a child to be a 
permanent part of their lives, but also wish the child to have continued interaction 
with its natural parents, termination of parental rights and adoption is not an option 
that is in the child’s best interest.15  In these cases, a child is not in "limbo," and a 
standard guardianship can provide the kind of safe and stable environment that 
"rises to the level of permanency."16   
Here, the CASA’s position that ASFA does not contemplate a Delaware 
“standard” guardianship to be a “legal guardianship” creating a permanent and 
self-sustaining relationship is meritless.  Delaware's guardianships under Chapter 
23 of Title 13 are legal guardianships ASFA contemplates because in each case the 
relationship is judicially created, and may only be modified or terminated after a 
court reviews a petition in light of the overall best interests of the child.  The 
                                                 
14 13 Del.C. § 2302 (16). 
15 Division of Family Services v. Hutton, 765 A.2d 1267 (Del. 2001). 
16 Id. at 1274 (citing Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533 (Del. 2000)). 
 
8
ability of a parent to challenge the guardianship does not, standing alone, destroy 
the elements of permanency that ASFA demands.  A legal guardianship order 
remains effective until a court terminates it, or until the child is either adopted, 
reaches the age of 18, or is married.  A legal guardian, the child, or the parent can 
ask the court to terminate the legal guardianship based on a change in 
circumstances.  Although it is less legally secure than adoption, the guardianship is 
more permanent than foster care, and contains all the indicia of parental rights 
contemplated by ASFA, including protection, education, custody, care and control 
of the person.  Accordingly, a permanency plan that includes a guardianship does 
not require DFS to demonstrate compelling reasons why termination of parental 
rights and adoption is not in the best interest of the child.  
Accordingly, Family Court Judges may, in the exercise of their discretion, 
approve guardianships where the circumstances suggest that the legal relationship 
thus created is in the best interest of the child.  
IV 
The CASA next argues that the Family Court Judge failed to include an 
explicit analysis of the best interest of the child as required by 13 Del. C. § 722, 
and that the Final Order was not in the children’s best interest.  That statute 
requires the Family Court to consider the following factors: 
(a) The wishes of the child’s parents as to his custody and residential 
arrangements; 
 
9
(b) The wishes of the child as to his custodian and residential 
arrangements 
(c) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with other 
relatives with whom he lives; 
(d) The child’s adjustment to his home, school and community; 
(e) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved; 
(f) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and 
responsibilities to their child; 
(g) Evidence of domestic violence. 
 
In Spence v. Division of Family Services,17 we determined that a trial judge need 
not enumerate the seven applicable factors so long as the opinion clearly 
demonstrates that they were analyzed.  Here, the permanency order creating the 
standard guardianship includes findings that: (i) the mother and father both 
reaffirmed their desire that the court award guardianship to the Trehernes; (ii) 
Yvette Goslee, the father’s aunt, consented to the granting of the standard 
guardianship; (iii) the children are well bonded to the Trehernes; (iv) the children 
seem well adjusted to the Trehernes and are always well-dressed and very happy; 
and (v) the Trehernes were both in good health.18  Accordingly, the judge correctly 
applied a careful Section 722 analysis to the facts.   
Finally, the Family Court judge justly applauded the Trehernes’ commitment 
to provide a loving, stable environment for these children that contemplates the 
rehabilitation of the mother and father and the possible reintroduction of the  
                                                 
17 817 A.2d 805 (Del. 2003). 
18 Division of Family Services v. Johnson, 820 A.2d 516 (Del. Fam. 2003). 
 
10
children to them at some future time.  We are convinced that the Family Court's 
Order does not leave these children in limbo, and conclude that the best interests of 
both children are indeed reflected in the permanency plan.  
V 
We determine that a guardianship ordered pursuant to 13 Del. C. §§ 2330 
through 234019 is a legal guardianship under the Adoption and Safe Families Act 
and therefore an appropriate option for permanency.  We also conclude that an 
order of guardianship under these standard guardianship provisions does not 
require a showing of compelling reasons why the termination of parental rights and 
adoption is not in the children’s best interest.  Finally, we conclude that the Family 
Court Judge conducted a proper analysis of the “best interest” factors under 13 
Del. C. § 722.20   
Accordingly, the Orders of the Family Court dated January 8, 2003 and 
January 14, 2003 are AFFIRMED.   
 
 
                                                 
19 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13, §§ 2330 through 2340 (2003).  These provisions are referred to as the 
“Standard Guardianship” provisions of the Delaware Code.   
20 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13, § 722 (2003).