Title: Morris & Clarke v. DFS & Court Appointed Special Advocate
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 580, 2011, 581, 2011, 586, 2011, 587, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 23, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ASHLEY MORRIS and  
§ 
JARED A. CLARKE,1 
 
§ 
Nos. 580/581/586/587, 2011       
 
 
§ 
        Consolidated 
 
Respondents Below, § 
 
Appellants, 
§ 
Court Below:  Family Court of  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware, in and for 
              v. 
 
§ 
Sussex County 
 
 
§ 
DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES § 
File Nos. 10-04-01TS    
and COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL § 
 
      CS10-02422 
 
ADVOCATE, 
 
§           
 
 
 
§ 
Petition Nos. 10-11604 
 
Petitioners Below, § 
                      10-26068 
 
Appellees. 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted:  April 25, 2012 
 
 
Decided:     May 23, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 23rd day of May 2012, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 
1. 
Ashley Morris (“Mother”) and Jared Clarke (“Father”), the 
respondents-below (collectively, the “parents”), appeal from Family Court orders 
terminating their parental rights in their three-year-old daughter (“child”) and 
denying a petition by maternal grandfather and paternal aunt, who are married 
(collectively, the “maternal grandparents”), for guardianship of the child.  The 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the appellants pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
7(d).  
 
2
Family Court awarded custody to the Division of Family Services, the petitioner-
below (“DFS”), to enable the child to be placed with adoptive parents.  On appeal, 
parents claim that the trial court abused its discretion by denying maternal 
grandparents’ petition for guardianship based on insufficient record evidence.  
They also argue that the Family Court terminated their parental rights based on a 
legally erroneous analysis of the statutory best-interests-of-the-child factors (the 
“best-interests factors”).2 
2.  DFS first gained custody of the parents’ children3 on November 25, 2008, 
after the agency raised concerns about domestic violence by Father and substance 
abuse by Mother.  The child was three days old at the time, having been “born 
drug-positive with significant health concerns” including “two holes in her heart, 
two cysts on her brain, [and] severe reflux.”  The Family Court ordered the 
children to remain in DFS’ care and, in January 2009, the parents agreed to a case 
plan for reunification with them.  With parents’ support, paternal grandmother was 
awarded guardianship of the two children not implicated in this appeal on 
December 14, 2009.  Thereafter, maternal and paternal grandparents filed petitions 
for guardianship of the child.  Eventually, both petitions were withdrawn.  When 
DFS then decided to seek termination of the parents’ rights in the child, only the 
                                                 
2 13 Del. C. § 722(a). 
 
3 DFS gained custody of Mother’s three children, two of which (including the child) are 
biologically Father’s.  Mother and Father’s second child is now 9-years-old, and Mother’s third 
child 4-years-old. 
 
3
maternal grandparents renewed their petition.  A hearing on the guardianship and 
termination of parental rights petitions was held in September and November 2010.  
In separate orders issued on September 30, 2011, the Family Court granted DFS’ 
petition to terminate the parents’ rights in the child, and denied the grandparents’ 
petition for guardianship. 
3. 
Our review of the termination of parental rights by the Family Court 
“involves a review of the facts and law, as well as the inferences and deductions 
made by the trial court.”4  Legal rulings are reviewed de novo; and factual findings 
are reviewed “to assure that they are sufficiently supported by the record and are 
not clearly wrong.”5  Absent legal error, “our review is limited to abuse of 
discretion.”6 
4. 
Parents’ claim that the Family Court abused its discretion by denying 
maternal grandparents’ guardianship petition “without adequate support from the 
record” and based on an erroneous best-interests analysis.  Because the maternal 
grandparents have not appealed from the Family Court’s adverse order, the parents 
                                                 
4 Powell v. DSCYF, 963 A.2d 724, 730 (Del. 2008). 
 
5 Id. at 731. 
 
6 Id. 
 
6 Id. 
 
 
4
lack standing to prosecute an appeal from the Family Court’s order denying 
grandparents’ guardianship petition.7 
 
5. 
Parents next claim is that the Family Court’s determination that, under 
the statutory best-interests factors termination of the parents’ rights was in the 
child’s best interests, was fatally flawed.  Parents claim that the Family Court 
erroneously concluded that the following factors “support[ed]” termination of the 
parents’ rights: (i) the wishes of the parents; and (ii) the child’s relationship with 
her parents, family members and other “persons who may significantly affect the 
child’s best interests.”8  
6. 
The Family Court determined that the “wishes of the child’s parent[s]” 
factor did “not support the parents,” because Father had previously stated that he 
“no longer wished to work toward reunification with [the child]” and Mother “did 
not attend the second day of the Termination of Parental Rights Hearing.”  The 
court “assume[d]” that Mother’s “absence [meant] that she does not oppose the 
termination of her parental rights.”  On appeal, parents argue that both 
determinations were erroneous, because Mother and Father “very clearly” and 
“unequivocally” opposed a termination of their parental rights.  The record, as 
recited in the parties’ briefs, reflects that both parents had at times expressed a 
                                                 
7 Hughes v. DFS, 836 A.2d 498, 506 (Del. 2003) (“[T]his Court has no jurisdiction to consider 
the [parent’s] challenge to the Family Court’s decision [denying a relative’s guardianship 
petition].”). 
 
8 13 Del. C. § 722(a)(3). 
 
5
desire to retain their parental rights, but at other times had indicated—by words 
and acts—that they did not oppose the termination of those rights.  Based on that 
record, the Family Court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the 
“wishes of the child’s parent[s]” factor did not “support” the parents retaining their 
parental rights in the child. 
7. 
Parents also claim that the Family Court’s analysis of the child’s 
interaction with her family members (a separate best-interests factor) was 
erroneous, because the court failed to consider the child’s relationships with any 
family members other than her parents.  Specifically, the Family Court observed 
that the child had little or diminished interaction with either parent, and concluded 
that that “factor does not support the parents.”  Parents contend that that conclusion 
“completely ignored” the “unrebutted evidence” of the child’s relationship with 
other family members, making the best-interests analysis “fundamentally flawed.”  
The record evidence, parents argue, indicated that the child had a “strong 
relationship” with her siblings and grandparents, and were a “close-knit family.”  
The child, however, was less than two-years-old when the termination of parental 
rights hearing was held, and less than three-years-old when the Family Court 
issued its order.  In these circumstances, the Family Court’s decision to focus on 
the interactions between the child and her parents when analyzing this factor, was 
 
6
not an abuse of discretion.  Accordingly, the parents’ challenge to the Family 
Court’s best-interests analysis lacks merit. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
        Justice