Opinion ID: 2273628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DFS made reasonable efforts to reunite the family.

Text: Mother next claims that DFS did not meet its obligation to create a meaningful case plan tailored to Mother's mental disabilities, or to make all reasonable efforts to reunify Mother and her children. The Family Court held that an alternate basis for terminating Mother's parental rights was her failure to plan pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5). When seeking termination of parental rights based on a failure to plan, DFS must prove by clear and convincing evidence that DFS made bona fide reasonable efforts to reunite the family. [15] Noting that the Family Court judge suggested that Mother could appeal the Family Court decision, Mother argues that DFS did not make sufficiently reasonable efforts, relying on a dissenting opinion in an unpublished Arizona case, Victoria W. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security. [16] In that case, the dissent argued that when a parent has an immutable mental capacity, severing the constitutionally protected parental relationship is unjustified without a finding that the parent cannot adequately meet the child's needs with appropriate assistance. [17] The same judge, dissenting in another Arizona case, [18] suggested placement of both the mother and the child in a supervised, group residential setting. The dissent in Victoria also argued that the reunification services cannot be determined to be futile simply because a mental capacity is immutable. [19] Mother also points to decisions in other jurisdictions holding that what constitutes reasonable efforts depends on the needs of the parent. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that [t]he issue of the reasonableness of the department's efforts must be determined from the `particular facts and circumstances of each case.' [20] The State is also required to make reasonable efforts [r]egardless of the unlikelihood for success. [21] The Rhode Island Supreme Court stated that for parents with mild mental incapacity, the efforts required from DCYF to satisfy the reasonable efforts standard `vary with the differing capacities of the parents involved.' [22] A California Appellate Court, [23] the Court of Appeals for the state of Washington, [24] and the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, [25] have made similar holdings. We agree that the reasonableness of the efforts by DFS to reunite the family must be determined from the particular facts of each case, including the capacities of the parents involved. We will review the efforts of DFS from that perspective. The DFS case plan addressed the following areas: helping Mother to financially support herself and the children; choosing appropriate caregivers, should the children be placed back in Mother's care; having Mother attend any medical appointments for the children; helping Mother learn how to care for the children; requiring Mother to have a psychiatric evaluation and comply with recommendations for treatment; problem-solving and coping skills; and frequent and meaningful visitation with the children. Mother does not dispute that she failed to comply with the case plan, but instead argues that the case plan itself did not adequately consider her mental limitations. As an initial matter, DeAngelis testified that the case plan took place over a two and a half year time period and involved several fine tuning adjustments based on Mother's condition. Mr. Chaney, who was involved in Mother's treatment, stated that further treatment would still involve medication to determine how well Mother could actually function if she complied. Mother might also be offered case management services. Mr. Chaney also testified, however, that these services are for people that have established some degree of compliance with the plan and understanding of their illness. The record shows that DFS made significant efforts to assist Mother. DFS arranged for Mother to receive psychiatric treatment, to gain employment and parenting skills, helped her with job applications, a SSI application, and a DDDS application. DFS also provided Mother with a parenting program, a parent aide service for ten months, and bus passes to facilitate compliance with her case plan. The case plan reflected a concern for her limitations, but Mother's participation was sparse and it was that limited participation which resulted in the Family Court's conclusion that she had failed to plan. This is not a case where the State failed to meet its own obligation to provide appropriate services, but a case where the parent failed to take advantage of the services offered. On the record before us, we conclude that the Family Court did not err in concluding that DFS made appropriate reunification services available to Mother.