Opinion ID: 2382036
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: De Facto Adoption

Text: DFS contends the Family Court improperly created a de facto adoption by imposing on Father a higher standard than the rules required for the return of child custody. According to DFS, the court erroneously imposed on Father a high burden, the clear and convincing standard, when it should have employed the lesser preponderance of the evidence test. DFS alleges that the clear and convincing test was not proper because it is used only for termination of parental rights proceedings. We are not persuaded by this contention. The Family Court's order stated: The Court will expect clear, strong, and convincing evidence of a change in circumstances before again considering [David's] custody and placement. Mother and/or Father would be expected, at a minimum, to show that they have completed all of the requirements previously set for them and outlined in prior Court orders. Father would also be expected to show his involvement in counseling to address parenting, mental health, and domestic violence issues. Father would further be expected to show his active participation in an outside support group for substance abuse issues. [27] Family Court Civil Procedure Rule 203(b) provides: [s]hould the Court find, by a preponderance of the evidence presented, that a child is dependent, neglected or abused, an order in accordance with 10 Del.C. Section 1009(b) shall be entered along with the dispositional provisos that may be set forth by the judge. [28] Father argues that the Family Court should have ordered that, in the future, Father must prove his ability to care for David by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing proof. Since the June 25, 1997 Order, the Family Court has not entered judgment on any petition by Father for the return of custody of David. Thus, the Family Court has not had occasion to rule on whether Father has proved that a change in circumstances exists that would warrant an alteration of David's dependency status. Accordingly, this claim is not ripe for appellate review. [29] If Father believes the Family Court employs an incorrect standard of review at a future dependency determination, he will have an opportunity to appeal that ruling. Accordingly, we decline now to rule on whether the Family Court imposed the correct standard of review for future dependency hearings.