Opinion ID: 1886607
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tara's First Degree Vehicular Assault Conviction Was An Independent Basis to Terminate Her Parental Rights.

Text: Before terminating a parent's rights in a child, the Family Court must engage in a two-step analysis. [3] First, the court must find that at least one of the grounds for termination enumerated in 13 Del. C. § 1103(a) has been established. Second, the court must determine that the best interests of the child, as defined in 13 Del. C. § 722, weigh in favor of the termination. Both steps require proof by clear and convincing evidence. [4] The Family Court determined that Tara had failed to plan adequately for [Trevor Jr.'s] physical needs or mental and emotional health and development[,] and that she had been convicted of a felony against a child. Either determination, the Family Court concluded, independently established the necessary predicate under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a) for terminating Tara's parental rights. Whether DFS has established the statutory grounds to terminate parental rights is a legal issue that we review de novo. [5] We conclude that Tara's claim that DFS failed to establish the statutory grounds for termination is without merit. 13 Del. C. § 1103 specifies several grounds for a termination of parental rights. Section 1103(a)(5) so provides where the parent(s) have failed to plan adequately for the child's physical needs or mental and emotional health and development. And Section 1103(a)(4) so provides where, as here: The respondent has been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have: a. Committed a felony level offense against the person, as described within subchapter II of Chapter 5 of Title 11, in which the victim was a child[.] The Family Court held that Tara's Superior Court conviction of First Degree Vehicular Assault satisfied Section 1103(a)(4), because her minor son, Daniel, was a victim of the vehicular assault. Because Tara concedes that her Vehicular Assault conviction provides a legal basis to terminate her parental rights, we need not reach her claim that the Family Court erred in finding that she failed to plan for her son. Thus, the sole remaining issue is whether the Family Court correctly concluded that termination was in Trevor Jr.'s best interests.