Case Title: Dunham v. DSCYF & Office of the Child Advocate

Citation: 

Docket Number: 12, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SALLY DUNHAM,1 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 12, 2016 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Family Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware  
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
DIVISION OF SERVICES FOR 
§  
File No. 15-07-03TN 
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR § 
Pet. No. 15-20559 
FAMILIES,  
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellee, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
and 
 
 
 
 
§ 
  
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
OFFICE OF THE CHILD 
 
§  
ADVOCATE, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 13, 2016 
Decided: 
June 29, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
    ORDER 
 
 
This 29th  day of June 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Sally Dunham (“Mother”), has appealed the Family 
Court’s order dated December 10, 2015, terminating her parental rights in her 
daughter born in 2006 and her sons born in  2008 and 2009 (collectively, the 
                                          
 
1 By Order dated January 8, 2016, the Court assigned a pseudonym to the appellant.  Del. Supr. 
Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 
 
“Children”).2    Mother’s counsel has filed a no-merit brief and a motion to 
withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c).  Counsel asserts that she has made a 
conscientious review of the record and the law and can find no arguable grounds 
for appeal.  Mother has not submitted any issues for the Court’s consideration.  In 
response to Counsel’s submission, the appellees, the Division of Family Services 
(“DFS”) and the Office of Child Advocate (“OCA”),3 have moved to affirm the 
Family Court’s judgment. 
 
(2) 
On September 5, 2014, the Family Court issued an ex parte order 
granting emergency custody of the Children to DFS because of concerns that 
Mother was homeless.  Counsel was appointed to represent Mother at the 
Preliminary Protective Hearing on September 10, 2014.  At the September 10 
hearing, and at the Adjudicatory Hearings on October 14, 2014 and January 20, 
2015, Mother stipulated to the Children’s dependency and custody was continued 
with DFS.  At all of the mandated review hearings, the court found that DFS was 
making reasonable efforts for reunification. 
 
(3) 
At a Dispositional Hearing on March 20, 2015, the Family Court 
approved a reunification case plan.  The key elements of Mother’s case plan 
included finding stable housing; obtaining employment and financial stability; 
                                          
 
2 The parental rights of the Children’s fathers are not at issue in this appeal.  The daughter’s 
father consented to the termination of his parental rights, and the sons’ father is deceased. 
3 An OCA attorney was appointed as the Children’s guardian ad litem in the Family Court 
proceedings. 
3 
 
obtaining a mental health evaluation and individual therapy; working with a parent 
aide; completing a Parenting Class; obtaining a substance abuse evaluation and 
treatment; resolving all pending criminal warrants and adhering to any probation 
requirements; and avoiding any new criminal charges. 
 
(4) 
On July 6, 2015, DFS filed a motion to change the goal from 
reunification to termination of parental rights.  DFS also filed a termination of 
parental rights (“TPR”) petition seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights on 
the statutory ground that she had not planned adequately for the Children’s 
physical needs or mental and emotional health and development.  At the 
conclusion of an evidentiary hearing on August 20, 2015, the Family Court 
changed the goal from termination to concurrent goals of reunification and 
termination.  The court found that it was unlikely Mother could be reunified with 
the Children in the near future due to her lack of progress in all areas of her case 
plan.  The court also scheduled a hearing on the TPR petition. 
 
(5) 
The TPR hearing was held on December 7 and 10, 2015.  Over the 
course of the two-day hearing, the Family Court heard testimony from Mother, the 
DFS treatment worker, the Children’s foster father, Mother’s probation officer, 
Mother’s substance abuse treatment counselor, and three social workers.  The 
Family Court granted the petition and terminated Mother’s parental rights in the 
Children.  This appeal followed. 
4 
 
 
(6) 
Termination of parental rights in Delaware is based on a two-step 
statutory analysis.4  In the first step, the Family Court must determine whether 
there is clear and convincing evidence of a statutory basis for termination.5  When 
the statutory basis for termination is an alleged failure to plan, the court also must 
determine by clear and convincing evidence that there is proof of at least one of 
five additional statutory conditions6 and that DFS “made bona fide, reasonable 
efforts to reunite the family.”7  In the second step of the analysis, if the court finds 
a statutory basis for termination, the court must determine whether there is clear 
and convincing evidence that severing parental rights is in the best interest of the 
child.8 
 
(7) 
In this case, the Family Court granted the TPR petition after 
concluding there was clear and convincing evidence of Mother’s failure to plan.  
The court found that Mother had not completed any of the requirements of her case 
plan despite DFS’ efforts for reunification, and that the Children had been in the 
custody of DFS for over one year.  After considering the best interest factors under 
13 Del. C. § 722, the court made factual findings and concluded that there was 
                                          
 
4 13 Del. C. § 1103(a).  Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 537 (Del. 2000). 
5 § 1103(a).   
6 § 1103(a)(5). 
7 Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth & Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 737 (Del. 2008) 
(quoting Newton v. Div. of Family Serv., 2006 WL 2852409, at *2 (Del. 2006) citing In re 
Hanks, 553 A.2d 1171, 1179 (Del. 1989))). 
8 See 13 Del. C. § 722(a)(1)-(8) (listing best interest factors).  Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for 
Children, Youth & Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008).    
5 
 
clear and convincing evidence that severing Mother’s parental rights was in the 
best interests of the Children.  This appeal followed. 
 
(8) 
This Court's review of a decision to terminate parental rights requires 
consideration of the facts and the law as well as the inferences and deductions 
made by the Family Court.9  To the extent rulings of law are implicated, our review 
is de novo.10  To the extent issues implicate rulings of fact, we conduct a limited 
review of the factual findings of the Family Court to assure they are sufficiently 
supported by the record and are not clearly wrong.11 This Court will not disturb 
inferences and deductions that are supported by the record and the product of an 
orderly and logical deductive process.12  If the Family Court has correctly applied 
the law, our review is limited to abuse of discretion.13 
 
(9) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions on appeal and 
the Family Court record, the Court concludes there is clear and convincing 
evidence supporting the Family Court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights.  
This Court can discern no abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s factual 
findings and no error in the court’s decision to terminate Mother’s rights.  There is 
ample evidence in the record supporting termination on the statutory basis that 
                                          
 
9 Wilson v. Div. of Family Serv., 988 A.2d 435, 439-40 (Del. 2010) (citing cases). 
10 Id. at 440. 
11 Id. 
12 Id. 
13 Id. 
6 
 
Mother failed to plan for the Children’s physical needs or mental and emotional 
health and development.  Also, there is ample record evidence that it was in the 
Children’s best interests to terminate Mother’s parental rights.  The Family Court 
thoroughly considered the best interest factors and was guided by the factual 
findings it made as to each.  We are satisfied that Counsel made a conscientious 
effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined that Mother 
could not raise a meritorious claim on appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.  Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
          Justice