Court Opinion

ID: 9398802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 11:04:17.750537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.623693
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    JULIAN LANG-LARSON,1        §
                                §                    No. 413, 2022
        Respondent Below,       §
        Appellant,              §                    Court Below—Family Court
                                §                    of the State of Delaware
        v.                      §
                                §                    File No. CN22-04-02TS
    DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR §                     Petition No. 22-08361
    CHILDREN, YOUTH & THEIR     §
    FAMILIES/DIVISION OF FAMILY §
    SERVICES,                   §
                                §
        Petitioner Below,       §
        Appellee.               §

                                Submitted: April 12, 2023
                                Decided: May 31, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                            ORDER

         Upon consideration of the appellant’s brief filed under Supreme Court Rule

26.1(c), his attorney’s motion to withdraw, the response of the Department of

Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, Division of Family Services

(“DFS”), and the response of the Office of Child Advocate (“OCA”), it appears to

the Court that:

         (1)    The respondent below-appellant, Julian Lang-Larson (“the Father”),

filed an appeal from the Family Court’s October 26, 2022 order, terminating his

1
    The Court previously assigned a pseudonym to the appellant under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
parental rights to his son (“the Child”).2 On appeal, the Father’s counsel (“Counsel”)

has filed an opening brief and motion to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule

26.1(c). Counsel represents that she has made a conscientious review of the record

and the law and found no meritorious argument in support of the appeal. The Father

has not submitted any points for the Court’s consideration. In response to Counsel’s

submission, DFS and OCA ask this Court to affirm the Family Court’s termination

of the Father’s parental rights. After careful consideration, this Court concludes that

the Family Court’s judgment should be affirmed.

       (2)     The Child was born in 2010. DFS first obtained custody of the Child

in September 2017 because his mother was incarcerated and the Father had been

arrested for domestic violence-related offenses involving a younger sibling of the

Child. The Father was deported to Mexico and did not appear in the dependency

and neglect proceedings involving the Child. In February 2019, the Family Court

granted a petition for guardianship filed by non-relatives of the Child.

       (3)     On September 7, 2021, DFS filed an emergency petition for custody of

the Child. DFS alleged that the guardians no longer wished to have guardianship of

the Child, that the Child had lived with the Mother from June to August, that the

Child could not live with the Mother where she was presently residing, and that there

2
  The Family Court also terminated the parental rights of the Child’s mother, who is not a party to
this appeal. We only recite the facts in the record as they relate to the Father’s appeal.
                                                2
were no willing and able relatives to care for the Child. The Family Court granted

the petition.

      (4)       On September 8, 2021, the Family Court appointed Counsel to

represent the Father. On September 14, 2021, the Family Court appointed an

attorney and a court appointed special advocate (“CASA”) to represent the Child.

      (5)       At the preliminary protective hearing on September 16, 2021, the

Father did not appear, but Counsel did appear and stated that she was trying to reach

the Father in Mexico. A DFS employee testified that the Child’s guardians had

contacted DFS in April and they advised that they were unable to continue caring

for the Child. DFS had been unable to find another placement for the Child. The

Child was doing well in his foster home and was in contact with the Father. The

court rescinded the guardianship. As to the Father, the Family Court found that there

was probable cause to believe the Child was dependent, that an award of custody to

DFS was in the Child’s best interests, and that DFS had made reasonable efforts to

prevent the unnecessary removal of the Child from the home.

      (6)       On October 14, 2021, the Family Court held an adjudicatory hearing as

to the Father. At the beginning of the hearing, Counsel advised that she was having

difficulty reaching the Father and was attempting to enlist the aid of the Mexican

embassy. Counsel was subsequently able to communicate with the Father via

WhatsApp during a court recess. She reported that the Father spoke sufficient

                                           3
English and that she was able to communicate with him. The Father was aware of

the proceedings, willing to accept service, and waiving his right to an adjudicatory

hearing. He was interested in reunification and willing to work on a case plan.      A

DFS employee testified that the Child had recently changed schools and was doing

well in his foster home. The Family Court found that it was in the Child’s best

interests to remain in DFS custody. The Family Court also found that DFS was

making reasonable efforts toward reunification.

      (7)    On November 4, 2021, the Family Court held a dispositional hearing as

to the Father. The Father did not attend the hearing, but Counsel did. A DFS

employee testified that she had been unable to reach the Father. She had initiated

contact with a person at the Mexican Consulate in Philadelphia; that person was

going to reach out to social services in Mexico. DFS had also received paperwork

relating to the Father’s deportation after he was arrested for domestic-violence

related offenses.

      (8)    DFS had prepared a case plan for the Father. The elements of the

Father’s case plan included completion of mental-health, substance-abuse, and

domestic-violence evaluations, obtaining and maintaining employment and

providing proof of income, obtaining and maintaining appropriate housing,

participation in the Child’s medical and educational needs, and virtual visitation with

the Child. The Father would be responsible for completing the necessary evaluations

                                          4
in Mexico. English and Spanish versions of the case plan were admitted into

evidence.

      (9)    A DFS employee testified that the Child was doing well. According to

that employee, the Child did not want to move to Mexico. The Family Court

approved the case plan for the Father. The Family Court found that it was in the best

interests of the Child to remain in DFS custody and that DFS was making reasonable

efforts toward reunification.

      (10) The Family Court held a review hearing on January 27, 2022. The

Father participated, with the assistance of a translator, via Zoom. The Child’s

therapist testified about his work with the Child. The Child’s foster mother testified

that the Child was doing well and communicating with the Father and other relatives.

The Child sometimes spoke with the Father twice a week.

      (11) A DFS employee testified that she spoke with the Father for the first

time that day. He was unaware of the case plan. The DFS employee discussed the

case plan with him and emailed English and Spanish versions of the plan to him.

She also testified that social services in Mexico would need to evaluate the Father’s

home; she was trying to set that up through the Mexican Consulate. She and the

CASA testified that the Child did not want to go to Mexico. The Family Court found

that it was in the best interests of the Child to remain in DFS custody and that DFS

was making reasonable efforts toward reunification.

                                          5
      (12) On March 9, 2022, DFS filed a motion to amend the permanency plan

from reunification to termination of parental rights/adoption. On April 14, 2022, the

court held a review hearing. The Father did not attend the hearing, but Counsel did.

Counsel could not take a position on DFS’s motion because she had been unable to

maintain contact with the Father since the last hearing.

      (13) The Child’s therapist testified that the Child did not seem to consider

living with his parents as a true option. He wanted a permanent family and was not

interested in moving to Mexico. A DFS employee testified that the Mexican

Consulate was attempting to reach the Father to arrange for a housing assessment.

She also testified that the Father had not completed any of the necessary evaluations.

At the end of the hearing, the Family Court adopted a concurrent permanency goals

of (i) termination of parental rights for purposes of adoption and (ii) reunification.

The Family Court also found that it was in the best interests of the Child to remain

in DFS custody. The Family Court scheduled a termination of parental rights

hearing for July 28, 2022.

      (14) In preparation for the hearing and as requested by the Child’s counsel,

the Family Court interviewed the Child on June 7, 2022. During the interview, the

Child said he talked with the Father on Facetime. The Child, who didn’t speak

Spanish, expressed fear about living in Mexico.

                                          6
      (15) The Family Court held a termination of parental rights hearing on July

28, 2022. The Family Court heard testimony from both parents, the Child’s

therapist, the Child’s foster mother, a Children and Families First employee who was

the foster care and adoption worker, two DFS employees, and the CASA. The

testimony reflected that the Child felt distant from his parents and wanted to live

with a stable family.      The Child and the Father spoke twice a week.       They

communicated in English as the Child did not speak Spanish. The Father had twice

sent money to the Child.

      (16) The Father testified that his primary language was Spanish, but he

understood 60%-70% of English. He worked in construction and owned a home.

He admitted that he was deported from the United States after he was charged with

domestic-violence related crimes. He claimed that he did not receive the case plan,

but said he understood that he needed to address certain issues such as his mental

health, domestic violence and substance abuse. He reached out to a doctor, but did

not proceed further as he did not know what to do. A DFS employee testified that

she sent the case plan to the Father in May and that she discussed the elements of

the case plan with him in English, which he seemed to understand. The Child’s

attorney supported termination of the Father’s parental rights.

                                          7
          (17) On October 26, 2022, the Family Court issued a decision terminating

the parental rights of the Child’s parents.3 As to the Father, the Family Court found

by clear and convincing evidence that the Father had failed to plan adequately for

the Child’s needs under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5). Although DFS had provided the

Father with English and Spanish versions of the case plan by January 27, 2022, and

discussed the case plan with him more than once, the Father had not obtained any of

the required evaluations or attended any of the Child’s educational or medical

appointments. There was no evidence, other than the Father’s testimony, that the

Father had safe and appropriate housing for the Child. The Father had only attended

two of the five hearings, even though notice of all the hearings was sent to his

address. If he had attended the hearings and had questions about the case plan, he

could have raised them there. He also had an attorney, who attended all of the

hearings and could have been consulted about the case plan. The Family Court also

found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Child had previously been in DFS

custody and that the Father had a history of dependency, neglect, abuse, or lack of

care of the Child.

          (18) The Family Court next considered the best-interest factors under 13

Del. C. § 722, and found by clear convincing evidence that termination of the

3
    The first page of the decision incorrectly states that the Father did not attend the TPR hearing.
                                                    8
Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interests. Finally, the Family Court

held that DFS had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.

       (19) On appeal, this Court reviews the Family Court’s factual and legal

determinations as well as its inferences and deductions.4 We review legal rulings de

novo.5 We conduct a limited review of the Family Court’s factual findings to assure

that they are supported by the record and are not clearly wrong.6 The Court will not

disturb inferences and deductions supported by the record and the product of an

orderly and logical reasoning process.7 If the Family Court correctly applied the

law, the standard of review is abuse of discretion.8

       (20) The statutory procedure for terminating parental rights requires two

separate inquires.9 First, the Family Court must determine whether the evidence

presented meets one of the statutory grounds for termination.10 When the statutory

basis for termination of parental rights is failure to plan adequately for the child’s

needs under Section 1103(a)(5) and the child is in DFS custody, there must be proof

of a least one additional statutory factor under Section 1103(a)(5).11 Second, the

Family Court must determine whether termination of parental rights is in the best

4
  Long v. Div. of Family Servs., 41 A.3d 367, 370 (Del. 2012).
5
  Id.
6
  Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008).
7
  Id.
8
  CASA v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 834 A.2d 63, 66 (Del. 2003).
9
  Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000).
10
   13 Del. C. § 1103(a); Powell, 963 A.2d at 731.
11
   Powell, 963 A.2d at 731.
                                                9
interests of the child.12 Both of these requirements must be established by clear and

convincing evidence.13

       (21) The Father has not submitted any points for this Court’s consideration

on appeal. Having considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we

conclude that the Father’s appeal is wholly without merit. There is ample evidence

supporting the Family Court’s termination of the Father’s parental rights based on

his failure to plan, that termination of the Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s

best interests, and that DFS made reasonable reunification efforts. We find no error

in the Family Court’s application of the law to the facts and no abuse of discretion

in the Family Court’s factual findings.

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

                                               BY THE COURT:

                                               /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                                     Justice

12
   Id. The best-interest factors include: (i) the wishes of the parents regarding the child’s custody
and residential arrangements; (ii) the wishes of the child regarding his custodians and residential
arrangements; (iii) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parents, grandparents,
siblings, persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child,
and any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child’s best
interests; (iv) the child’s adjustment to his home, school, and community; (v) the mental and
physical health of all individuals involved; (vi) past and present compliance by both parents with
their rights and responsibilities to the child under 13 Del. C. § 701; (vii) evidence of domestic
violence; and (viii) the criminal history of any party or any resident of the household. 13 Del. C. §
722(a).
13
   Powell, 963 A.2d at 731.
                                                 10