Opinion ID: 2555358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arthur-Lawrence v. Division of Family Services

Text: Arthur-Lawrence [33] also provides no support for Brown's argument that DFS must, as a matter of law, fund an out-of-state parent's travel costs to Delaware. In that case, the natural mother moved to New York with her boyfriend, leaving her children behind in Delaware. [34] After her move, DFS worked with various New York agencies and prepared a second case plan to address the mother's lack of stable housing, lack of basic parenting skills, and lack of means to support her children. [35] The second case plan included having the mother obtain food stamps and mental health counseling, and establish stable housing. The mother failed to comply with that second case plan. [36] During the six months that the mother was in New York, DFS paid the bus fare for the mother's monthly visits to Delaware, but the mother visited only three times. [37] After learning that the ICPC request to place her children in New York had been denied, the mother decided to return to Delaware, after which DFS created a third case plan that was substantially similar to the second, but utilized Delaware instead of New York services. [38] Despite these efforts, the mother still failed to comply with the third case plan, missing several parenting and substance abuse treatment sessions, and mental health appointments. [39] Based on those facts, the Family Court terminated her parental rights, and this Court affirmed. [40] Although in Arthur-Lawrence we acknowledged that DFS had paid for the mother's bus fare between New York and Delaware, our decision did not rest on that fact. Rather, the travel funding was viewed as merely one of many services that DFS had provided to reunify the mother and her children. Arthur-Lawrence cannot be fairly read as holding that for DFS to have used reasonable efforts, it is obligated to pay for an out-of-state parent's visitation travel costs. In short, there is no legal requirement that in order to make reasonable reunification efforts, DFS must always pay for that parent's travel costs. As the New Jersey Superior Court stated, [t]here is no recognized legal right ... for an out-of-state parent to become eligible for state-subsidized travel in order to visit [his or her] own child who comes under the umbrella of child protective services. [41] Even if the State had voluntarily and generously offered to pay for travel costs in the past, that does not obligate [the State] to offer such transportation services... every time [an out-of-state parent wishes to] visit. [42] The New Jersey court properly recognized that it would be poor precedent to commit[ ] limited state resources to providing transportation to parents who voluntarily chose to relocate out of state.... [43] That rationale applies with equal force here. After being released from prison in Connecticut, Brown chose to remain in Connecticut rather than return to Delaware. While in Connecticut, Brown was offered similar services through CFS and Reconnecting Families, and DFS attempted to supplement CFS's offerings to help Brown comply with her Delaware case plan. Once Brown decided to remain in Connecticut, DFS made reasonable efforts to place Daniel either with relatives or with Brown in Connecticut. DFS also paid for Daniel to travel to Connecticut to visit Brown. Given these circumstances, the fact that DFS did not pay for Amtrak tickets for Brown to travel to Delaware does not legally detract from, or negate, the effect of the other efforts and services DFS provided. We, therefore, uphold the Family Court's conclusion that DFS used reasonable efforts to reunify Brown and Daniel.