Title: Arthur v. DFS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 244, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 2005

Pseudonyms have been assigned pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 8.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DANIEL ARTHUR,
§
§
No. 244, 2004
Respondent Below,
§
Appellant,
§
§
v.
§
Court Below: Family Court
§
of the State of Delaware
DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES,
§
in and for New Castle County
§
File No. 02-12-02TN
Petitioner Below,
§
Petition No. 02-36000
Appellee.
§
Submitted: November 17, 2004
Decided: February 2, 2005
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 2  day of February, 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties,
nd
it appears to the Court that:
1) Daniel Arthur  appeals a Family Court decision terminating his parental
1
rights with respect to his daughter, Amanda.  Arthur argues that the decision should
be reversed because: i) the Division of Family Services (“DFS”) did not exercise
reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and ii) Arthur was not appointed counsel at
the outset of the dependency and neglect proceedings.
2
2) Amanda was born in December 2000 and lived with Mother for
approximately eight months.  During that time, Arthur was incarcerated.  On
August 30, 2001, DFS obtained custody of Amanda because Mother was addicted to
drugs and allegedly was placing Amanda in dangerous situations.  Arthur was not
notified, and therefore did not attend the preliminary hearing held on September 7,
2001.  Nonetheless, as a result of that hearing, Amanda was placed with Arthur’s
mother.  Arthur also missed the adjudicatory hearing, held on October 24, 2001,
because he was not properly notified.  The Family Court continued Amanda’s
placement with Grandmother.
3) Arthur was out of prison and attended the January 18, 2002, review hearing.
At that time he requested that counsel be appointed.  Due to a clerical error, however,
counsel was not appointed until March 19, 2003.  Arthur returned to prison later in
January 2002, and, despite proper notice, he failed to attend the next two review
hearings.
4) By the summer of 2002, Grandmother “needed a break” from caring for
Amanda.  Although Grandmother later complained that she did not want Amanda to
be permanently removed from her care, DFS placed Amanda in foster care in July
2002.
3
5) On September 18, 2002, after a permanency hearing, the Family Court
determined that Arthur had not followed his case plan and was not addressing his drug
addiction.  The trial court also found that DFS had made reasonable efforts towards
reunification by offering appropriate services to both parents.  The court concluded
that, since Amanda could not safely be returned to her parents’ care within a
reasonable time frame, DFS should file a petition to terminate parental rights.
6) After a hearing at which all parties were represented, the Family Court
entered a decision and order terminating both parents’  parental rights in May 2004.
The trial court made detailed findings in support of its conclusions that: i) DFS made
reasonable efforts to reunify the family; ii) DFS established the statutory grounds for
termination by clear and convincing evidence; and iii) it is in Amanda’s best interest
to terminate parental rights.  In addition, the Family Court held that the failure to
appoint counsel for Arthur at the outset of the dependency and neglect proceedings
was harmless error.
7) Arthur argues that DFS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the
family in that it did not provide adequate assistance to Grandmother.  The trial court
carefully considered the evidence relating to Grandmother’s involvement.  It noted
that she loves Amanda and has a good relationship with the child, but that
Grandmother did not want full responsibility for the child.  Grandmother took care of
836 A.2d 498 (Del. 2003).
2
4
Amanda with the expectation that Amanda’s parents would overcome their  problems
and regain custody.  Grandmother thought her involvement would last about six
months.  When Grandmother indicated to DFS that she needed a break, DFS arranged
for respite care.  DFS only removed Amanda from Grandmother’s care when it
became clear to DFS that Grandmother was relying too heavily on respite care and
could not handle full time care giving.  These facts support the trial court’s
determination that DFS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family through
placement with Grandmother.       
8) Arthur also contends that the termination decision should be reversed
because he was not appointed counsel until 14 months after he requested counsel.  In
Hughes v. DFS,  this Court held that the failure to appoint counsel for an indigent
2
parent during dependency and neglect proceedings is harmless error if the outcome
of the termination proceedings would have been the same had counsel been appointed.
In this case, Arthur’s parental rights were terminated because of his repeated
incarcerations and his related drug addiction.  Arthur admitted that he understood what
was expected of him under the case plans and that he failed to meet his responsibilities
because he was taking drugs.  Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the
5
trial court correctly determined that Arthur’s parental rights would have been
terminated even if he had been appointed counsel at the outset.
9) Arthur maintains that the failure to appoint counsel adversely affected him
because, without counsel, Grandmother did not fully appreciate what she could do to
obtain custody of Amanda.  The problem with this argument is that no action
Grandmother might have taken would have changed the result as to Arthur.  His
parental rights would have been terminated in any event.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court
be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice