Title: Bosch v. DSCYF/DFS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 454, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 16, 2019

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).