Opinion ID: 1959884
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bests Interests Analysis

Text: Even when there is a statutory ground for termination of parental rights, the petition for termination will not be granted unless it is in the child's best interest. It must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights is essential to the child's welfare. [9] The best interest determination necessarily depends upon the facts in the context in which the petition is presented. [10] In making the determination, the Family Court must consider all relevant factors, including those set forth in 13 Del.C. § 722. [11] We review the grant or denial of a termination petition to assure that they are sufficiently supported by the record and result from an orderly and logical deductive process. [12] We find that the record supports the conclusion of the Family Court that termination of Mother's parental rights would not be in Quintana's best interest. Concerning the wishes of Mother, [13] the Court found that while Mother had exhibited difficulty acting in the best interests of the child and was not seeking custody, she still wished to play a role in Quintana's life. This finding rested in part on the testimony of Dr. Turner, a psychologist, who testified that Mother was aware of her limitations and had demonstrated both willingness and ability to overcome them. The Family Court also found that according to the testimony of Ms. Rochester, the current foster caregiver, Mother had been maintaining a schedule of weekly visits with Quintana. The Court next considered the child's wishes. [14] A Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) testified that Quintana looks forward to her Mother's visits. The CASA also testified that while Mother should not have custody of Quintana, continuing visits provide a plus, and termination would not be in Quintana's best interest. This testimony supports the Family Court's conclusion that this statutory factor favors denial of the petition. [15] The Family Court further found that the positive interactions between Mother and Ms. Rochester, [16] and Quintana's successful adjustment to living with Ms. Rochester and being visited by her Mother [17] favored denial of the petition. We recognize that there was conflicting testimony concerning the nature of Mother's relationship with Quintana and the prospect that Mother might develop her parenting skills. Nonetheless, in light of the Family Court's findings, which are supported by the record, we do not agree with the DFS that the Family Court's analysis is without support. [18] The DFS also argues on appeal that the Family Court did not give due to consideration to the importance of giving Quintana the chance for a permanent relationship with a caregiver. The DFS argues that the only way to achieve this is through adoption by Ms. Rochester, which of course entails termination of Mother's parental rights. This argument is based on the view that, as the Family Court acknowledged, Mother has engaged in erratic and sometimes harmful behavior that threatens to interfere with the current placement with Ms. Rochester. The DFS also cites Ms. Rochester's testimony that while she sees Mother playing a role in Quintana's life, that role should be sharply limited. As we have stated, one of the important objectives of the termination of parental rights statute is to ensure that children are not denied the opportunity for a stable family life. [19] Permanency is defined as the safe, stable, custodial environment in which a child is raised, and the life-long relationship that child established with a nurturing caregiver. [20] With this principle in mind, we turn to the present case. We have carefully reviewed the Family Court's ruling, and we conclude that the Family Court's decision to deny the termination takes into account the importance of permanency. The Family Court found that Ms. Rochester is committed to [the] child and ... wants that child to be a permanent part of her life. The Family Court also found that Ms. Rochester wants Quintana to continue to have some interaction with Mother. Thus, the Family Court reached the conclusion that this is not a case where the child is going to be left in limbo. Furthermore, the DFS' own policy guidelines support guardianship as a viable option when the child cannot be returned home ... or when it has been determined that adoption is not ... in the best interest of the child. [21] Adoption is not in the best interest of the child in this case, but a guardianship would provide Quintana with the safe, stable, custodial environment in which to be raised that rises to the level of permanency. This is a case where the foster mother testified that she wants Quintana to be a permanent part of her life, and she would consider adoption or guardianship. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Family Court was required to grant the termination petition in order to further Quintana's vital interest in a permanent relationship. Accordingly, the judgment of the Family Court is affirmed.