Title: Dailey v. DFS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 113, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 30, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ALICE DAILEY,
)
)
No. 113, 2004
Respondent Below,
)
Appellant,
)
Court Below:  Family Court
)
of the State of Delaware,
v.
)
in and for New Castle County
)
No. 03-10-03TN
DIVISION OF FAMILY 
)
SERVICES,
)
)
Petitioner Below,
)
Appellee.
)
Submitted:  August 4, 2004
Decided: August 30, 2004
Before STEELE, Chief Justice,  BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 30   day of August, 2004, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it
th
appears to the Court that:
(1)  Alice Dailey appeals from a judgment of the Family Court terminating
parental rights over her two children and granting custody to Appellee Division of
Family Services (“DFS”).  Dailey claims that because DFS failed to meet certain
statutory requirements in presenting its case, the trial judge erred in ordering
termination.  She also contends that her absence from the hearing was justified
because she was the victim of a robbery earlier that day.  Because the trial judge’s
findings are supported by the record, we affirm.
DFS v. Davis, Del. Fam. Ct., No. 03-10-03TN, (March 1, 2004).
1
In re Kelly Stevens, 652 A.2d 18, 23 (Del. 1995).
2
Division of Family Services v. Hutton, 765 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Del. 2001).  
3
Id.
4
13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5) (directing that Family Court consider, among others, the
5
mental and physical health of all individuals and the parents’ past and present compliance with their
2
(2)  In early 2002, Dailey’s two children, then ages one and three, were dropped
off at a daycare center by an unidentified individual.  After a brief period spent in
foster care and with a relative, the children were returned to Dailey.  Due to continued
struggles with drug addiction and ongoing mental health concerns, however, DFS
initiated a hearing for termination of parental rights in early 2004.  Finding DFS had
established by clear and convincing evidence that Dailey had failed to plan adequately
for the children’s needs, the Family Court terminated Dailey’s parental rights.1
(3)  Dailey claims that DFS failed to develop a plan to assist her in reunifying
her family and deal with her drug addiction.  She concedes that DFS placed her in a
drug counseling program, but claims that such measures were insufficient to stem her
string of misfortunes.  Dailey also claims the trial judge inadequately addressed the
best interests of Dailey’s children.    
(4)  We review the grant or denial of a termination petition to assure it is
sufficiently supported by the record and the result of an orderly and logical deductive
process.   Before terminating parental rights, the Family Court must find a statutory
2
basis for termination and that such an action is in the best interests of the child.   The
3
grounds for termination include those instances where a parent is unable or has failed
“to plan adequately” for the child’s needs.   Additionally, the trial judge must consider
4
the best interests of the child through an evaluation of seven statutory factors.   There
5
rights and responsibilities to their child).
Div. of Family Serv. v. Nxxxxx Xxxxxx, 802 A.2d 325, 333 (Del. Fam. Ct., 2002); 29
6
Del. C. § 9003(3)-(4) (directing that plan must be “designed to achieve any placement of the child
outside of the child's home in the least restrictive setting available. . . .”).
          Dailey claims for the first time on appeal that she was attacked on the day of the
7
hearing before the Family Court and did not attend for that reason.  We decline to address this in the
first instance as any such claim should be presented to the trial judge.  See SUPR.CT.R.8.  As such,
we take no position on the merits of any motion she may make pursuant to Family Court Rule 60(b).
3
must also be evidence that DFS has developed a case plan designed “to guide a parent
through a meaningful process” of reunification with the child and other family
members.6
(5)  The record reveals that Dailey missed several plan-related appointments,
failed to comply with DFS-ordered drug abuse and mental health counseling, and
refused to comply with a parent aid assigned to her case.  The record shows that she
is addicted to drugs, suffers from recurring mental health issues, and that she has had
chronic absences and instances of noncompliance with DFS plans for the welfare of
her family.  Given this history, the trial judge was well within her discretion in
applying the statutory best-interest factors as she did on the record before her.    We
conclude that the record supports the Family Court’s decision terminating Dailey’s
parental rights.7
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely
Justice