Title: Acorn & Malic III v. Laymen
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 148, 2019
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 28, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ABIGAIL ACORN and WENDALL 
MALIC III,1 
 
 
Respondents Below, 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
SETH LAYMEN and LAURA 
LAYMEN, 
 
Petitioners Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 148, 2019 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below–Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§ 
§ 
§  File No.  17-09-02TS 
§  Petition No.  17-28003 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   August 21, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided:   October 28, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the appellants’ brief filed under Supreme 
Court Rule 26.1(c), their attorneys’ motions to withdraw, the appellees’ 
response, and the Child Attorney’s response, it appears to the Court that:  
 
(1) 
By order dated March 5, 2019, the Family Court terminated the 
parental rights of the appellants, Abigail Acorn (“the Mother”) and Wendall 
Malic III (“the Father”) (collectively, “the Parents”), with respect to their 
children—a girl, born in 2013, and a boy, born in 2015 (“the Children”).  
                                                        
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
7(d).  
 
2 
(2) 
The Mother’s and the Father’s appointed counsel on appeal have 
filed a joint opening brief and motions to withdraw pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 26.1(c).  Counsel assert that they have reviewed the record and have 
determined that no arguable claim for appeal exists.  Counsel informed the 
Parents of the provisions of Rule 26.1(c) and provided them with copies of 
the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief.  Counsel submitted the 
Parents’ concerns as “Appellants’ Points” in their brief on appeal.  The 
appellees, Seth Laymen and Laura Laymen, and the Child’s Attorney have 
responded to counsel’s Rule 26.1(c) brief and argue that the Family Court’s 
judgment should be affirmed. 
 
(3) 
In April of 2015, the Division of Family Services (“DFS”) 
opened an investigation into the Parents after receiving reports that they were 
using heroin and did not have adequate food for the Children in the hotel room 
where they were living.  DFS referred the Parents to treatment service 
providers and directed them to update DFS about their progress.  The Parents 
failed to do so.  Two months later, the Parents were arrested and charged with 
various offenses stemming from their alleged illegal occupation of a 
residence.  Following their arrest, the Family Court awarded DFS emergency 
custody of the Children.  DFS immediately placed the Children with the 
 
3 
Laymens.  At the time, the Children were approximately nineteen months old 
and four months old. 
 
(4) 
After DFS filed its dependency and neglect petition, the 
mandated hearings ensued.2  A dispositional hearing was held on July 21, 
2015, and the Family Court approved case plans developed by DFS to 
facilitate the reunification of the Parents with the Children.  The approved 
case plans for the Mother and the Father required that they: (i) receive 
substance abuse treatment, (ii) obtain and maintain employment and 
demonstrate an ability to provide for the Children financially, (iii) obtain and 
secure stable housing, and (iv) receive mental health treatment.  The Father’s 
approved case plan also required that he attend a parenting workshop and 
build a support network of family and friends.  The case plans ensured the 
Mother and the Father would have visits with the Children twice a week for 
two hours. 
 
(5) 
Over the next nine months, the court held a series of hearings to 
review the progress the Parents had made toward reunification.  In a series of 
orders following the review hearings, the Family Court found that the 
Children remained dependent in the Parents’ care due to the Parents’ ongoing 
                                                        
2 When a child is removed from home by DFS and placed in foster care, the Family Court 
is required to hold hearings at regular intervals under procedures and criteria detailed by 
statute and the court’s rules. 13 Del. C. § 2514; Del. Fam. Ct. R. 212-219. 
 
4 
struggle to obtain stable housing, steady employment, and reliable 
transportation.  On May 10, 2019, the court held a permanency hearing.  At 
that time, the Children had been residing with the Laymens for approximately 
eleven months.  With the Parents’ agreement, the permanency goal was 
changed from reunification to the concurrent goals of guardianship and 
termination of parental rights. 
(6) 
After the goal change, the Father’s sister, a resident of North 
Carolina, filed a petition for guardianship of the Children.  The Laymens also 
filed a petition for guardianship.  After a hearing on the competing petitions 
for guardianship, the court found that the Children remained dependent in 
Mother and Father’s care, and that it was in the Children’s best interests that 
they continue to reside with the Laymens.  Accordingly, the court denied the 
Father’s sister’s petition and awarded guardianship of the Children to the 
Laymens in March 2017.  The Father’s sister did not appeal the denial of her 
petition. 
 
(7) 
 On September 7, 2017, the Laymens filed a filed a petition (“the 
TPR petition”) seeking to terminate the Parents’ parental rights on the basis 
of their failure to plan for the Children’s needs.3  The Laymens later amended 
the TPR petition to include additional grounds for the termination of parental 
                                                        
3 The Laymens also filed a petition to adopt the Children. 
 
5 
rights, specifically: (i) abandonment (intentional and unintentional), (ii) 
chronic abuse, and (iii) unexplained serious physical injury resulting from the 
conduct or neglect of the Parents.  The Parents opposed the Laymens’ petition. 
(8) 
The Family Court held a hearing on the TPR petition over two 
days in November 2018.  The Parents appeared, represented by counsel.  The 
Family Court heard testimony from the Mother, the Father, the Children’s 
foster care and adoption social worker, a licensed child psychologist, Mr. 
Laymen, Mrs. Laymen, the Father’s sister, the Father’s aunt, and the Father’s 
grandmother.  The testimony reflected that the Parents had been clean and 
sober since December 2015.  However, the testimony also reflected that: (i) 
the Parents continued to struggle with obtaining and maintaining stable 
housing, (ii) the Parents had failed to address their mental health issues until 
after the TPR petition had been filed and more than two years after the 
Children were removed from their custody, (iii) the Parents had not obtained 
financial stability, (iv) the Parents had visitation with the Children for only 
one hour once a month since the Laymens had been awarded guardianship in 
March 2017, and (iv) the Parents could not immediately resume custody and 
financial support of the Children because they had not filed a motion to 
rescind the guardianship.  The Family Court also heard evidence that the 
Children experienced acute anxiety when placed in situations where they 
 
6 
feared the Laymens would abandon them.  Importantly, the Family Court also 
heard from the child psychologist who testified that the Children were very 
bonded to the Laymen family and that a change in placement would be very 
disruptive to the Children’s emotional development. 
(9) 
Following the hearing, the Family Court issued a written decision 
dated March 5, 2019.  The court rejected the Laymens’ arguments that 
termination of the Parents’ rights was appropriate due to abandonment, 
chronic abuse, or serious injury.  However, the Family Court found clear and 
convincing evidence that the Parents had failed to plan adequately for the 
responsibility of raising the Children.  The court found further that, even if the 
Parents were financially secure and able to provide the Children with stable 
housing and other basic needs, the Parents would struggle to fulfill their 
parental responsibility to meet the Children’s emotional needs.  The Family 
Court noted that the Children had been residing with the Laymens for nearly 
four years and, after balancing the best interests factors under 13 Del. C. § 
722, the court concluded that it was in their best interests to terminate the 
Parents’ parental rights.  
 
(10)  On appellate review of a termination of parental rights, this Court 
is required to consider the facts and the law as well as the inferences and 
 
7 
deductions made by the Family Court.4  We review legal rulings de novo.5  
We conduct a limited review of the factual findings of the trial court to assure 
that they are sufficiently supported by the record and are not clearly wrong.6  
If the trial judge has correctly applied the law, our review is limited to abuse 
of discretion.7 
 
(11) The statutory procedure for terminating parental rights requires 
two separate inquires.8  First, the court must determine whether the evidence 
presented meets one of the statutory grounds for termination.9  If the Family 
Court finds a statutory basis for termination of parental rights, the court must 
determine whether, considering the factors enumerated at 13 Del. C. § 722, 
severing parental rights is in the best interests of the child.10  It is incumbent 
on the petitioner—the Laymens in this case—to prove by clear and convincing 
evidence that there is a statutory basis for termination of parental rights and 
that the best interests analysis favors termination.11 
                                                        
4 Scott v. DSCYF, 2012 WL 605700, at *1 (Feb. 27, 2012).   
5 Wilson v. DFS, 988 A.2d 435, 440 (Del. 2010).  
6 Id.  
7 Powell v. DSCYF, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008).   
8 Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000).   
9 Id. at 537. See also 13 Del. C. § 1103(a) (listing the grounds for termination of parental 
rights). 
10 13 Del. C. § 722(a) (listing the factors to be considered when determining the best 
interest of the child).  
11 Powell, 963 A.2d at 731.   
 
8 
 
(12) On appeal, the Parents argue that: (i) the Family Court did not 
consider the Parents’ wishes when it denied Father’s sister’s petition for 
guardianship; (ii) the record reflects that Parents had, in fact, addressed the 
elements of their case plans; and (iii) it was not in the Children’s best interests 
to terminate the Parents’ parental rights.  Parents also make new claims of 
stable housing, employment, the existence of a support system, mental health 
treatment, and reliable transportation. 
(13) After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions on 
appeal and a thorough review of the record, the Court has determined this 
appeal should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the 
Family Court in its March 5, 2019 decision.  We find no error in the Family 
Court’s application of the law to the facts.  The Family Court found clear and 
convincing evidence that the parents had failed to plan adequately for the 
Children’s needs,12 that the Children had resided with the Laymens in excess 
of one year, 13  that the Parents were incapable of discharging parental 
responsibilities,14 and that termination of the Parents’ parental rights was in 
the best interests of the Children.15  Those conclusions are well-supported by 
                                                        
12 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5). 
13 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5)b.1. 
14 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5)b.2. 
15 13 Del. C. § 1103(a); 13 Del. C. § 722(a). 
 
9 
the record.  Because an appeal is heard on the evidence submitted to the trial 
court, we cannot consider Parents’ new claims of financial stability and 
emotional support. 16  Also, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the 
Parents’ objection to the Family Court’s denial of the Father’s sister’s petition 
for guardianship.17 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED.  The motions to withdraw are moot.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                        
16 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented 
for review; provided, however, that when the interests of justice so require, the Court may 
consider and determine any question not so presented.”); Delaware Elec. Coop., Inc. v. 
Duphily, 703 A.2d 1202, 1206 (Del. 1997) (“It is a basic tenet of appellate practice that an 
appellate court reviews only matters considered in the first instance by a trial court.  Parties 
are not free to advance arguments for the first time on appeal.”). 
17 Hughes v. DFS, 836 A.2d 498, 506 (Del. 2003).