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 29 th day of June 2016, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Sally Dunham (“Mother”), has ap pealed 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 an d 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 fo r the Court’s consideration. In response to Counsel’s submission, the appellees, th e 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 b ecause of concerns that Mother was homeless. Counsel was appointed to repr esent Mother at the Preliminary Protective Hearing on September 10, 201 4. At the September 10 hearing, and at the Adjudicatory Hearings on Octobe r 14, 2014 and January 20, 2015, Mother stipulated to the Children’s dependenc y 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 elemen ts of Mother’s case plan included finding stable housing; obtaining employme nt 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 gu ardian 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 sub stance 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. D FS also filed a termination of parental rights (“TPR”) petition seeking to termina te Mother’s parental rights on the statutory ground that she had not planned adequ ately for the Children’s physical needs or mental and emotional health and d evelopment. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing on August 20, 2015, the Family Court changed the goal from termination to concurrent goa ls 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 TP R petition. (5) The TPR hearing was held on December 7 and 10, 2015. Over the course of the two-day hearing, the Family Court hea rd testimony from Mother, the DFS treatment worker, the Children’s foster father, Mother’s probation officer, Mother’s substance abuse treatment counselor, and t hree social workers. The Family Court granted the petition and terminated Mo ther’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 determin e whether there is clear and convincing evidence of a statuto ry basis for termination. 5 When the statutory basis for termination is an alleged f ailure to plan, the court also must determine by clear and convincing evidence that the re is proof of at least one of five additional statutory conditions 6 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 d etermine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that severing parental righ ts 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 o f the requirements of her case plan despite DFS’ efforts for reunification, and th at the Children had been in the custody of DFS for over one year. After considerin g the best interest factors under

13 Del. C. § 722, the court made factual findings and conclud ed 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 & The ir 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 follow ed. (8) This Court's review of a decision to terminate parental rights requires

consideration of the facts and the law as well as t he 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, w e 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 discreti on. 13 (9) Having carefully considered the parties’ submi ssions 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 th e Family Court’s factual findings and no error in the court’s decision to te rminate 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 n eeds or mental and emotional health and development. Also, there is ample recor d evidence that it was in the Children’s best interests to terminate Mother’s par ental 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 proper ly 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