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

Heading: Termination Of Parental Rights To Daniel

Text: On March 31, April 1, and April 6, 2010, the Delaware Family Court held the termination of parental rights hearing. Several witnesses testified, including: Brown, Diffendall, Wilson (DFS adoption worker), Brown's NBN parent-aide coordinator, Evans (from SODAT), representatives from GBCMH who had worked with Brown, Dr. Houst, and Morris (from CFS). The Family Court concluded that the statutory basis for terminating Brown's parental rights under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5) had been established because: (1) Daniel had been in DFS's custody for over one year, and (2) despite her best efforts, Brown had failed to adequately plan for Daniel's physical needs, emotional health, or development. The bases for that latter conclusion were Brown's long-standing mental health and substance abuse issues, her noncompliance with treatment programs, her limited contact with Daniel due to her outstanding legal issues in Connecticut, and her inability to secure housing. [11] The Family Court also determined that even though DFS had used reasonable efforts to reunify Brown and Daniel, Brown had failed to comply with the reunification case plan in either Delaware or Connecticut. [12] Finally, after weighing the eight factors prescribed by 13 Del. C. § 722(a), the court concluded that terminating Brown's parental rights was in Daniel's best interests. [13] The Family Court entered a separate order and opinion terminating Brown's parental rights in Daniel, [14] from which this appeal was taken.