Opinion ID: 2555358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: In re S.N.F.

Text: In S N F, the natural mother voluntarily left her children and moved to Texas after becoming romantically involved with someone else while undergoing substance abuse treatment. The Family Court found that DFS had failed to use even minimal efforts towards reunification where DFS's only efforts consisted of telling the mother to return from Texas to Delaware, and initiating an ICPC request that was never completed. [28] Commenting on these minimal efforts, Family Court observed that DFS did not offer the mother financial support and did not offer the mother any means of transportation to travel to Delaware to visit with [her child]. [29] Nor did DFS draft a case plan or offer the mother reunification services, even though the mother had been in rehabilitation treatment and was sober. [30] The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) recommended that parental rights not be terminated, and that it was in the best interests of the child to be returned to her mother, because mother's circumstances had changed and she had successfully rehabilitated herself. [31] Finding that DFS had made minimal reunification efforts, because DFS believed that the child should be put up for adoption, the S N F court concluded that DFS had failed to use reasonable efforts to reunify mother and child. [32] This case, however, is materially distinguishable. Here, unlike S N F, DFS did much more than simply tell Brown to return from Connecticut or initiate a never-completed ICPC request. DFS was actively involved in Brown's reunification services while she lived in Delaware. Even after Brown relocated to Connecticut, DFS worked with CFS to monitor her progress and help her obtain the necessary mental health and substance abuse treatment. DFS also made several attempts to place Daniel with Brown's relatives in Connecticut, and continued to arrange visits between Brown and Daniel whenever Brown came to Delaware. But, because Brown never entered into a substance abuse treatment program as her Delaware case plan required, that ultimately played a role in her losing custody of her other child, Lisa, in January 2010. Moreover, DFS paid the travel expenses for Daniel to visit Brown in Connecticut during the 2009 holiday visit, and also coordinated visits whenever Brown was in Delaware. Finally, unlike in S N F, Daniel's guardian ad litem also took the position that Brown's termination of parental rights was in Daniel's best interest. In these materially different circumstances, the Family Court's conclusion that DFS used reasonable efforts is not erroneous, let alone clearly erroneous.