Opinion ID: 2319086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Judge Adequately Considered the Best Interest Factors.

Text: Stearns also contends that the judge erred by failing to address adequately the best interest of the child factors of 13 Del. C. § 722 when deciding to terminate Stearns's parental rights. The judge did not include a written analysis of the section 722 factors in his final written order. Rather, the judge merely wrote: [I]t is in the best interests of these children to terminate mother's parental rights. Since these children have been in care, there has been great improvement in their socialization skills and their physical and emotional development. But, and as excerpted at length above, the judge did discuss those the factors in his oral ruling from the bench when denying Stearns's Motion to Dismiss. As this Court has emphasized, section 722 provides only that [i]n determining the best interests of the child, the Court shall consider all relevant factors. [28] Section 722 does not require the Family Court to articulate a step-by-step analysis. [29] Here, the record reflects that when considering Stearns's Motion to Dismiss, the judge, in fact, considered each of the section 722 factors notwithstanding the lack of any statutory requirement to consider them all. Stearns concedes that the trial court judge, under our holding in Harper, did not need to articulate a step-by-step analysis of the best interest factors. She argues, however, that the judge's oral analysis of the best interest factors was not the product of an orderly and logical deductive process, and therefore, was legally erroneous. The record proves otherwise. The judge orally analyzed each of the best interest factors by enumerating each factor and recounting evidence he found relevant to each. The judge focused particularly on the fifth factor[t]he mental and physical health of all individuals involved [30] because Stearns has struggled with significant mental and emotional health issues. Even though his final written order only addressed this fifth factor, the record clearly reflects that his consider[ation] of and conclusions with respect to all of the section 722 best interest factors were not clearly wrong.