Opinion ID: 2300238
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Burden of Proof Proper

Text: The statutory standard for terminating parental rights provides for two separate inquiries. [7] In the first inquiry, the Family Court must find a statutory ground for termination under title 13, section 1103 of the Delaware Code. [8] In the second inquiry, the Family Court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child. [9] DFS must satisfy both inquiries by clear and convincing evidence. [10] Before filing the petition to terminate parental rights, DFS must also prove by clear and convincing evidence that it made bona fide reasonable efforts to reunite parent and child. [11] The Mother contends that the Family Court erred by shifting the burden of proof at the termination of parental rights hearing from DFS to the Mother. The Mother points to an excerpt from the hearing transcript where the Family Court stated: [F]or purposes of this case I believe once this Court orders that services not be provided, then the clock and obligation of the Division ends as to whether or not it has to continue to try to show the mother or the father is working up to the case plan. Unfortunately, the Mother's burden shifting argument cites to that isolated excerpt out of context. A review of the complete hearing transcript demonstrates that the Family Court did not shift the burden to DFS. The Family Court first discussed the goals set forth in the case plan. The Family Court then stated: I'm satisfied that at this point the Division has established a ground for termination and that mother has not successfully completed the case plan. Now there's been talk about where is the cut-off as to what the State has to prove.... Again, obviously the parents are entitled to provide whatever evidence they want to show circumstances have since changed from the time the Court ordered a change of goal to where we are now and there's obviously been cases where that has been done. But we have to depend on what the evidence is as shown. That does not shift the burden from the Division to the parents to show that there has been a termination. Otherwise, in the Burns case, the Supreme Court would not have said that the Division no longer has to provide services and that the clock would stop. So I think that's when ... the Division's case is either made or lost as far as it's concerned. Obviously parents can provide more evidence. Thus, a reading of the complete record reflects the Family Court was stating that DFS had satisfied its duties with respect to reunification effortsnot that the burden of proof had shifted from DFS to the Mother. In Burns, we held that if termination of parental rights is sought based on the parent's failure to plan, the trial court is required to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the State's bona fide efforts to meet its own obligations. [12] We also explained: [w]e see no fundamental error in permitting the agency to discontinue reunification efforts if the State has acted properly to terminate parental rights. In such circumstances the State assumes an adversarial role vis a vis the parents. To require continued reunification efforts, while contending for termination, is illogical. [13] The Family Court's statements at oral argument were entirely consistent with this Court's holding in Burns. Moreover, the Family Court's final opinion demonstrates that it was holding DFS to the standard of proving failure to plan by clear and convincing evidence. The Family Court stated that: [i]n addition to establishing a ground for the termination of parental rights, the Division must also establish that it has used reasonable efforts to reunite a parent with a child. It then held: [a]fter considering all of the evidence in this case, I am satisfied the Division has by clear and convincing evidence established that mother has failed to adequately plan for [Child] for over a period of one year.... The record reflects that the Family Court properly placed the burden of proof on DFS throughout the termination proceedings.