The Decision: This case involves an appeal from a Family Court decision in June of 2000, terminating the parental right of Ms. Farley in her three children. In March of 1998, all three of Ms. Farley's children entered care. On February 4, 2000, DFS filed a petition to terminate her parental rights. A hearing on the petition was held in Family Court on June 22, 2000. The Family Court ruled from the bench that day that the grounds for termination had been met, and that it was in the best interests of the children for rights to be terminated. The Court signed the order effective that date. On July 27, 2000, Farley filed a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal on August 15, 2000. On August 25, 2000, DFS filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. On September 6, 2000, the Office of the Child Advocate filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. That request was denied, and the case was remanded to the Family Court for a determination as to whether the late filing was the result of Court error. The Family Court determined the late filing was not Court error.

     On December 15, 2000, the Supreme Court held that the remedy available to clients in criminal appeals, where there is ineffective assistance of counsel, was equally applicable in termination proceedings. In short, it determined that if the delay in filing has not prejudiced the appellees or the children involved, the matter can be remanded for the entry of a new order. The entry of a new order would allow the 30-day appeal period to once again run. In this case, the Supreme Court, en banc, determined that there was not any prejudice to the children since "the untimely appeal was filed only five days after the expiration of the 30 day appeal period and it does not appear that there has been any substantial change in the children's circumstances, such as adoption." The Supreme Court did not retain jurisdiction of this matter.

     From the Child's Perspective: The holding in this case is devastating for our children. The Farley children came into the care and custody of DFS in March of 1998. At the time, the children were 10, 7, and 5 years of age. They are now 13, 9, and 7 years of age. The Court correctly concluded that there had been no substantial change in these children's circumstances. In fact, they have been unable to be adopted because of the ongoing Court proceedings in this matter. Had the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal as untimely, these three children would be legally free for adoption. However, due to the remand, these children will likely be caught up in the legal system and unable to achieve permanency for at least another year. At that point, they will be 14, 10, and 8 years of age. While Ms. Farley certainly has due process rights which merit protection, these children have been prejudiced by the Supreme Court's decision.

     More globally, this case symbolizes that there is still a lack of certainty and/or finality for children whose very futures are decided by these cases as to when the decisions are really final, and gives the parents, who are competent adults with voices, the impression that they will be given priority above the rights of their children. Children, families (adoptive and biological), and the child welfare community need to be able to rely on the Court system and know that statutes and rules mean what they say.

Back to Case Law