Case Summary: This case was an appeal of an order terminating the parental rights of Mr. Jamison in his six children, who were in and out of foster care from 1994 until the time of trial. Their tumultuous young lives indicated 8 referrals to DFS, and at least 4 entries into foster care. Jamison was incarcerated for much of the children's lives, and at the time of trial was serving a 21-year sentence for first degree armed robbery. At the time of trial, the children ranged in age from four to eleven.
     Jamison argued two issues on appeal. First he argued that his due process rights were violated when he was not transported from prison for the adjudicatory hearing when the children entered care in 1999. He then argued that reasonable efforts were not made to reunify him with his children, and by extension, with his family.
     The Delaware Supreme Court applied the Matthews v. Eldridge test, and considered its holding in In Re: Heller, 669 A.2d 25 (1995), in concluding that Jamison was not deprived of his due process rights. The Court acknowledged that the interests of the State and of Jamison were equally compelling. It found that although Jamison was not present for the hearing, he was present for a hearing just a month prior and knew his children were in custody. Moreover, at any time between the children entering custody and the termination of parental rights trial, Jamison could have petitioned the Family Court regarding the children's placement. He failed to do so. Nor did he petition the Family Court for a review of the July 1999 order, despite his experience in filing several pro se pleadings in his criminal matter. The Court found that "Jamison failed to take advantage of the entire process for objecting to the placement with DFS despite knowledge of that possibility, the opportunity to challenge the action and an understanding that it served as a precursor to the termination of his parental rights."
     The Court then turned to the issue of whether DFS had met the statutory requirement to provide preventive and reunification services to Jamison pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 9003. The Court upheld its ruling in In re: Heller that "DFS had no statutory obligation to attempt reunification between an incarcerated parent and child because it "would not be feasible". The Court affirmed the Family Court's determination that Jamison's lengthy incarceration, his lack of contact with his children, and DFS' efforts to arrange same constituted reunification services and that no further efforts were "feasible".
     Jamison then argued that reunification services necessarily encompass exploration of family members for placement. The Family Court found that DFS had made efforts to place the children with Jamison's relatives. In particular, Jamison had previously indicated that none of his family members were available to care for the children. In addition, when Jamison proposed his mother as a caretaker at the trial, the record indicated that Jamison's mother was not in a position to care for the children because she was in a drug and alcohol center. The Court found that these factual findings were supported by the record below and were the result of an orderly and logical deductive process. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the order to terminate parental rights.

     From the Child's Perspective: This case does a wonderful job of re-affirming the landmark decision of In re: Heller, by once again holding that where "it is not feasible" DFS will not be obligated to provide reunification services to a parent. In this particular case, it was not feasible in that Jamison had a lengthy prison term to serve, and had little contact with his children in the years leading up to the termination petition. It also clearly dictates that where a parent fails to contest findings prior to a termination of parental rights hearing, their subsequent reliance on those errors as a reason for not terminating their parental rights will be thoroughly scrutinized. Finally, the decision seems to indicate that the "last minute production" of a relative where a parent has previously indicated a lack of relative resources will be given a close examination.
     We applaud the Court for the guidance this case gives in making permanency decisions for other children in foster care, and for allowing these children's lives in foster care to draw to a close. And most importantly, we are grateful that these children now have the chance to have a "forever family" after so many years of neglect, abuse and uncertainty about their future.

Back to Case Law