Opinion ID: 2273628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Stevens' petition for guardianship

Text: The Family Court took note of several facts when weighing whether to grant Stevens' petition. The children were living with Stevens when DFS intervened. [30] Stevens had a history of problems with DFS. [31] Stevens took part in the disruptive visit that resulted in the termination of visitation rights with the children for Stevens, Stuart and Mother. Stevens testified that she had a criminal history. [32] The Family Court applied the eight factors set forth in § 722(a). Under the first factor, Mother supported either guardianship petition if she could not regain custody of the children. The second factor was not gauged by the children's wishes, but by their conduct. Neither child had seen the guardianship petitioners in the prior eleven consecutive months. There was testimony that the children had bonded to their current caregiver who wished to adopt them, and that neither child had asked for or about either petitioner. Regarding the third factor, the family had a low amount of interaction with the children during their visitations and was involved in the altercation that resulted in the Family Court terminating visitation rights. Regarding the fourth factor, testimony was presented that both children had transitioned well into their pre-adoptive placement and were thriving. The children had become attached to their foster mother and her extended family, had play dates with extended family, Ny'Aire had begun to take ballet classes, and the foster mother wished to adopt both children. As for the fifth factor, Stevens, although having no discernable mental or physical concerns, lacked insight regarding the physical concerns of her grandchildren and failed to act when it was necessary. As for the sixth factor, Stevens' son was removed from her home twice after DFS involvement. Regarding the seventh factor, the record does not reflect a history of domestic violence involving either petitioner. The eighth factor focuses on the criminal history of any party. Here, Stevens' criminal history included harassment, offensive touching and resisting arrest. Stevens has not shown that the findings of fact are clearly wrong. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Stevens' petition for guardianship.