IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAY BOSCH,

1

Respondent Below,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR 

CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR 

FAMILIES/DIVISION OF FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Petitioner Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 454, 2018

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ File Nos. 18-03-11TN

§ CN17-04580

§ 

§ Petition Nos. 18-08631

§ 17-28244

§

§

§

 Submitted: March 1, 2019

 Decided: April 16, 2019

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and SEITZ, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court Rule 

26.1, his attorney’s motion to withdraw, the response of the Department of Services 

for Children, Youth and Their Families/Division of Family Services (“DFS”), and 

the response of the attorney ad litem, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) The respondent below-appellant, Jay Bosch (“the Father”), filed an

appeal from the Family Court’s decision, dated August 7, 2018, terminating his

 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the appellants under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
2

parental rights to his daughter (“the Child”). On appeal, the Father’s counsel 

(“Counsel”) has filed an opening brief and motion to withdraw under Supreme Court 

Rule 26.1. Counsel represents that he has made a conscientious review of the record 

and the law and found no meritorious argument in support of the appeal. The Father 

has submitted no points for the Court’s consideration. In response to Counsel’s 

submission, DFS and the Child’s attorney ad litem, have moved to affirm the Family 

Court's termination of the Father’s parental rights.

(2) The Child was born in June 2017. On September 14, 2017, DFS was 

awarded temporary custody of the Child by emergency ex parte order. The Child 

was previously in the temporary care of the paternal great-aunt because the mother 

of the Child (“the Mother”)2 was incarcerated and there was a criminal no-contact 

order between the Father and the Child as a result of the Father biting the Child and

being charged with Child Abuse in the Second Degree. DFS sought temporary 

custody after the Family Court denied the paternal great-aunt’s petition for 

temporary guardianship and the paternal great-aunt acted strangely and aggressively 

toward the DFS worker.

(3) At the preliminary protective hearing on September 20, 2017, the 

Family Court appointed counsel to represent the Mother and the Father. Based on 

the parents’ stipulations, the Family Court found there was probable cause to believe 

 

2 The Mother consented to termination of her parental rights and has not appealed.
3

the Child was dependent. The Family Court also found that DFS had exercised due 

diligence in notifying the Child’s relatives and there was no appropriate placement 

for the Child with relatives. 

(4) October 26, 2017, the Family Court held an adjudicatory hearing. The 

Family Court found that the Child was dependent based on the parents’ stipulations. 

The Mother had been released from prison and had visitation with the Child. The 

Father had completed a drug evaluation in which he tested positive for marijuana

and was advised to obtain weekly outpatient treatment, completed a mental health 

evaluation, and begun parenting classes. The Family Court found that DFS had 

exercised due diligence in trying to find placement for the Child with relatives, but 

had not found any appropriate and available relatives. The Father was ordered to 

undergo genetic testing at State expense.

(5) On December 7, 2017, the Family Court held a dispositional hearing. 

The DFS worker was having difficulty communicating with both parents because 

they often failed to respond to her messages. DFS had determined that the Father’s 

residence was inappropriate for the Child based on the criminal backgrounds of other 

residents. Case plans were submitted for both of the parents. As part of his case 

plan, the Father was required to complete a mental health evaluation and follow any 

recommendations, complete a substance abuse evaluation and follow any 

recommendations, inform DFS about the progress of his criminal case and comply 
4

with any legal conditions, work with a family interventionist to build his parenting 

skills, maintain consistent employment, and obtain safe and appropriate housing. 

The Family Court found that DFS had made reasonable plans to finalize the 

permanency plan of reunification.

(6) On March 1, 2018, the Family Court held a review hearing. Neither 

parent appeared. Based on the genetic testing results, the Father was adjudicated the 

biological father of the Child. The Father had completed parenting classes, but 

remained in the same inappropriate housing despite receiving information about 

affordable alternatives and left a treatment program despite being diagnosed with 

opioid use disorder in full remission, severe cannabis use disorder, ADHD, and 

bipolar disorder. The Father had pled guilty to Child Abuse in the Second Degree. 

The prosecutor informed DFS that, with the Family Court’s authorization, the Father 

could have contact with the Child. The Family Court authorized visitation, subject 

to DFS’s discretion. The DFS Permanency Committee had recommended a goal 

change to termination of parental rights/adoption based on the parents’ limited 

progress with their case plans. The Family Court scheduled a review hearing for 

May 21, 2018, with the understanding that if DFS served the parents with a 

termination for parental rights twenty or more days in advance of the hearing, then 

the Family Court would hear the petition at the May 21st hearing.
5

(7) On March 22, 2018, DFS filed a petition for termination of both 

parents’ parental rights. Personal service could not be successfully completed so 

there was newspaper publication on April 27th, May 4th, and May 11th. The 

termination of parental rights hearing began on May 21, 2018, but was continued to 

July 17, 2018 for lack of sufficient time. The Mother consented to termination of 

her parental rights at the beginning of the May 21st hearing. The hearing resumed 

on July 17, 2018. 

(8) The testimony reflected that the Father began weekly supervised visits 

with the Child on March 23, 2018. There was concern that the Father had not 

developed the necessary parenting skills to care for the Child. On April 5, 2018, the 

Father completed an evaluation that resulted in no mental health diagnosis. On June 

1, 2018, he completed a substance abuse evaluation, tested positive for marijuana, 

and began substance abuse treatment. Throughout the proceedings, the Father 

changed employment several times. At the time of the second hearing, he was living 

in his car. The Father admitted he was presently unable to care for the Child, but 

sought additional time to complete his case plan. 

(9) On August 7, 2018, the Family Court issued a decision terminating the 

parental rights of the Father and the Mother. As to the Father, the Family Court 

found by clear and convincing evidence that the Father had failed to plan adequately 

for the Child’s needs under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5). The Father had only recently 
6

begun substance abuse treatment and had not developed the necessary parenting 

skills, obtained steady employment, or found suitable housing. The Family Court 

also found that the Child had been in DFS care for more than six months, there was 

a history of abuse by the Father, the Father was unable to assume legal and physical 

custody of the Child, and failure to terminate parental rights would result in 

continued emotional instability and physical risk to the Child. The Family Court 

next found, by clear and convincing evidence, that DFS had made reasonable efforts 

to reunify the family. Finally, the Family Court considered the best interest factors 

under 13 Del. C. § 722 and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination 

of parental rights was in the best interests of the Child.

3

 

(10) On appeal, this Court reviews the Family Court’s factual and legal 

determinations as well as its inferences and deductions.

4

 We will not disturb the 

Family Court’s rulings on appeal if the court’s findings of fact are supported by the 

record and its explanations, deductions, and inferences are the product of an orderly 

 

3 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 her custodians and residential 

arrangements; (iii) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with her 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 her 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.

4 Long v. Div. of Family Servs., 41 A.3d 367, 370 (Del. 2012).
7

and logical reasoning process.5 We review legal rulings de novo.

6

 If the Family 

Court correctly applied the law, then our standard of review is abuse of discretion.7 

(11) The statutory procedure for terminating parental rights requires two 

separate inquiries.8 First, the Family Court must determine whether the evidence 

presented meets one of the statutory grounds for termination.9 Second, the Family 

Court must determine whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of 

the child.10 Both of these requirements must be established by clear and convincing 

evidence.11 After careful consideration of the parties’ positions and the record on 

appeal, we conclude that there is ample evidence supporting the Family Court’s 

termination of the Father’s parental rights. There was no error or abuse of discretion 

by the Family Court. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr 

Justice

 

5

In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995).

6

Id.

7 CASA v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 834 A.2d 63, 66 (Del. 2003).

8

Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000).

9

13 Del. C. § 1103(a) (listing the grounds for termination of parental rights).

10 13 Del. C. § 722(a).

11 Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008).