Court Opinion

ID: 9404820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 13:04:17.124537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.557707
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    ANYA L. THOMAS,1                       §   No. 5, 2023
                                           §
        Respondent Below,                  §   Court Below—Family Court
        Appellant,                         §   of the State of Delaware
                                           §
        v.                                 §   File No. 22-08-10TN
                                           §
    DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES                 §   Petition No. 22-18508
    FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND               §
    THEIR FAMILIES/DIVISION OF             §
    FAMILY SERVICES,                       §
                                           §
        Petitioner Below,                  §
        Appellee.                          §

                            Submitted: May 19, 2023
                            Decided:   June 26, 2023

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

                                    ORDER

        After consideration of the appellant’s brief and motion to withdraw filed by

the appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c), the responses, and the

Family Court record, it appears to the Court that:

        (1)   This is an appeal from the Family Court’s order dated December 13,

2022, that terminated the appellant’s (“Mother”) parental rights as to her child born

in April 2021 (the “Child”). The Family Court’s order also terminated the parental

1
 The Court previously assigned a pseudonym to the appellant pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
7(d).
rights of the Child’s father (“Father”), who filed a separate appeal.2 We focus on

the facts in the record as they relate to Mother’s appeal.

       (2)    Mother’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under

Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c).            Mother’s counsel asserts that, based upon a

conscientious review of the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Counsel

informed Mother of the provisions of Rule 26.1(c) and provided her with a copy of

the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Mother

of her right to supplement counsel’s presentation. Mother did not provide any points

that she wanted to present for the Court’s consideration. The Department of Services

for Children, Youth, and Their Families, Division of Family Services (“DFS”) as

appellee and the Child’s attorney from the Office of the Child Advocate have

responded to the Rule 26.1(c) brief and argue that the Family Court’s judgment

should be affirmed.

       (3)    Mother resided in a home with her husband and three older children.

Before the Child’s birth, the family had a lengthy history with DFS relating to

Mother’s substance abuse. At the Child’s birth in April 2021, Mother and the Child

tested positive for drugs, including methamphetamines and fentanyl. The hospital

made a referral to DFS, which implemented a safety plan under which the Child

2
 This Court affirmed the termination of Father’s parental rights. Banks v. Dep’t of Servs. for
Children, Youth, & Their Families, 2023 WL 3853993 (Del. June 6, 2023).

                                              2
resided at a neighbor’s house after her discharge from the hospital, with no

unsupervised contact with Mother. After the neighbor informed DFS in July 2021

that she was no longer willing to care for the Child, DFS initiated a dependency

proceeding seeking custody of the Child. The court transferred custody to DFS, and

the Child was placed in a foster home.

       (4)     The mandated hearings ensued.3 At the preliminary protective hearing

on July 14, 2021, Mother testified that she believed the biological father of the Child

was a person she knew only as “C.” Her husband testified that “C” was a drug

dealer. The court ordered that notice of the proceedings be provided to the unknown

father by publication and ordered paternity testing as to Mother’s husband.4 Mother

testified that she would be entering inpatient drug treatment later that day. The court

ordered that supervised visits would be scheduled twice per week after Mother’s

release from treatment.

       (5)     Mother signed a case plan on October 18, 2021. The case plan required

that Mother obtain and maintain employment with adequate income to provide food,

shelter, and clothing for the Child; maintain appropriate, clean, and safe housing for

3
  See Kline v. Del. Div. Family Servs., 2023 WL 2259101, at *1 n.3 (Del. Feb. 28, 2023) (“When
a child is removed from home by DFS and placed in foster care, the Family Court is required to
hold hearings at regular intervals under procedures and criteria detailed by statute and the court’s
rules.” (citing 13 Del. C. § 2514; DEL. FAM. CT. R. CIV. PROC. 212-19)).
4
  At a hearing in January 2022, Mother identified Father as the Child’s biological father and
testified that he was incarcerated in Pennsylvania at the time. The court later adjudicated Father
to be the Child’s biological father, following paternity testing.

                                                 3
the Child; complete a mental health evaluation and follow recommended treatment,

including taking prescribed medication; comply with recommended substance abuse

treatment and provide negative urine screens; sign consent forms for DFS to contact

mental health and substance abuse providers; complete a parenting class; attend all

sessions with an assigned family interventionist; and continue to participate in

visitation with the Child and have positive and appropriate visits.

      (6)    Following a review hearing on January 13, 2022, the Family Court

determined that Mother had failed to make progress toward completion of her case

plan. Specifically, the court found that Mother had not obtained employment or

demonstrated income sufficient to provide for the Child and that her husband had

indicated that he was not willing to provide documentation of his income to satisfy

that element of the case plan. Mother also had not completed a mental health

evaluation or followed recommended treatment, other than attending a single session

at Savida in September 2021. Mother had not complied with substance abuse

treatment or provided negative urine screens. DFS had identified certain concerns

about the safety and cleanliness of Mother’s home, but Mother had not allowed the

family interventionist to visit the home since November 2021, nor had she attended

the required meetings with the family interventionist since October 2021, with the

exception of a single meeting. DFS had enrolled Mother in several parenting

                                          4
courses, but Mother had failed to complete the courses. Mother had missed seven

visits with the Child.

      (7)    On April 14, 2022, Mother entered an inpatient drug rehabilitation

facility, Bowling Green, after DFS had received information concerning Mother’s

continued drug use and Mother admitted to DFS that she had recently used heroin

and/or opiates. By the time of a review hearing on April 18, 2022, Mother had not

made significant progress on her case plan, except for regularly attending visits with

the Child. By the time of a permanency hearing on June 28, 2022, Mother had not

provided DFS with her records from Bowling Green, nor had she provided the results

of any drug screenings, despite her testimony that she had been screened five times

since May 10, 2022, with clean results. Moreover, Mother had been arrested for

new criminal charges on June 15, 2022; had missed three out of four scheduled

meetings with the family interventionist since April 22, 2022, and refused to allow

the family interventionist to visit her home; had missed three out of the preceding

eight scheduled visits with the Child; and had failed to satisfy other elements of her

case plan. The court found similar failure to make progress toward Mother’s case

plan based on evidence presented during a post-permanency review hearing on

September 6, 2022.

      (8)    On December 13, 2022, the Family Court held a post-permanency

review and TPR hearing. Mother arrived approximately two hours late for the

                                          5
hearing. The evidence presented at the hearing reflected that Mother had urine

screen results that were positive for amphetamines and cocaine on August 10, 2022,

positive for amphetamines on September 7, 2022, positive for amphetamines and

fentanyl on October 14, 2022, and positive for amphetamines on November 18,

2022. Mother was engaging in substance abuse treatment with CORAS Wellness,

where she received daily, maintenance dosages of methadone. Although Mother

testified that she engaged in monthly mental health counseling, DFS had not been

able to confirm that information.       Mother had not obtained employment or

completed a parenting course, despite enrolling in the course three times. Mother’s

husband had not visited with the Child or indicated a willingness to financially

support the Child. DFS had offered Mother two visits per week with the Child, but

Mother had attended only eight of the twenty-seven visits that had been available

since the last hearing. Mother had also recently pleaded guilty to shoplifting charges,

had pending charges for driving with a suspended license, had a pending violation

of probation, and had been released from incarceration only a few days before the

hearing. The family interventionist testified that Mother had failed to address safety

concerns in her home, including a sharp, broken glass door on the stove that created

a safety hazard for a toddler.

      (9)    The Family Court issued a ruling from the bench at the conclusion of

the hearing and entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights. The court

                                          6
determined that DFS had established, by clear and convincing evidence, a statutory

basis for terminating Mother’s parental rights for failure to plan adequately for the

Child within the statutory timeframe.5 As to failure to plan, the court found that

Mother had not satisfied the element of her case plan that required her to show that

she had financial resources that would enable her to care for the Child. The court

also found that Mother had not satisfied the element of her case plan regarding

substance abuse, the primary reason for the Child’s entry into foster care, because

the test results presented, which covered the four months preceding the hearing, were

positive for illegal substances. The court determined that Mother had not addressed

the safety issues in her home, despite having had a year to do so. The court also

found that Mother had not satisfied the element of her case plan regarding visitation

with the Child and that Mother’s excuses for missing the visits were not credible.

       (10) The court also found, by clear and convincing evidence, that DFS had

made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Applying the best interest factors, 6

the Family Court found that DFS had established, by clear and convincing evidence,

that it was in the Child’s best interests to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Mother

had missed many visits with the Child, while the Child had formed relationships

5
  13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5).
6
  See id. § 1103(a) (providing that parental rights may be terminated if one of several statutory
grounds is established and “it appears to be in the child’s best interest”); id. § 722 (setting forth
factors that the court may consider when determining the best interests of a child).

                                                 7
with her foster family;7 the foster family had provided a home where the Child was

safe, well nurtured, and well cared for, while Mother had not;8 and Mother continued

to incur criminal charges and incarceration.9

       (11) On appeal, this Court is required to consider the facts and the law as

well as the inferences and deductions made by the Family Court.10 We review legal

rulings de novo.11 We conduct a limited review of the factual findings of the trial

court to assure that they are sufficiently supported by the record and are not clearly

erroneous.12 If the Family Court correctly applied the law, then our standard of

review is abuse of discretion.13

       (12) The statutory framework under which the Family Court may terminate

parental rights requires two separate inquiries.14 First, the court must determine

whether the evidence presented meets one of the statutory grounds for termination.15

When the statutory basis for termination is failure to plan, the Family Court must

also find proof of at least one additional statutory condition.16 Second, if the Family

7
  Id. § 722(a)(3).
8
  See id. § 722(a)(4), (6).
9
  See id. § 722(a)(8).
10
   Wilson v. Div. of Family Servs., 988 A.2d 435, 439-40 (Del. 2010).
11
   Id. at 440.
12
   Id.
13
   Id.
14
   Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000).
15
   Id. at 537. See 13 Del. C. § 1103(a) (listing the grounds for termination of parental rights).
16
   13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5)a-e (listing additional conditions, including that the child has been in
DFS custody or placed by a licensed agency for at least one year, or for six months if the child
came into care as an infant).

                                                8
Court finds a statutory basis for termination of parental rights, then the court must

determine whether terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the child.17

Both of these requirements must be established by clear and convincing evidence.18

       (13) Mother has not submitted any points for this Court’s consideration on

appeal. Mother’s appointed counsel represents that she has determined that no

arguably appealable issue exists. After careful consideration of the parties’ positions

and the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment of the Family Court should

be affirmed on the basis of the Family Court’s determination, as set forth in its bench

ruling of December 13, 2022, and its Order for Termination and Transfer of Parental

Rights of the same date, that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mother

had failed to plan adequately for the Child’s needs, that DFS had made reasonable

reunification efforts, and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best

interests of the Child. Those conclusions are well-supported by the record. We

therefore affirm.

17
   Shepherd, 752 A.2d at 537. See 13 Del. C. § 722(a) (listing factors for consideration when
determining the best interests of the child).
18
   Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth & Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008).

                                               9
     NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot.

                                  BY THE COURT:

                                  /s/ Karen L. Valihura
                                  Justice

                                    10