Case Summary: The Division of Family Services (“DFS”) filed a petition to Terminate and Transfer Parental Rights (“TPR”) pursuant to 13 Del.C. § 1103 (a)(7) and (a)(8), alleging that Mother subjected her child to torture, chronic abuse, and/or life threatening abuse, and the child’s unexplained serious physical injuries resulted from Mother’s intentional conduct or willful neglect.  Previously, on July 16, 2004, Father pled guilty to inflicting some, but not all, of the injuries to the child and was sentenced accordingly.

On October 20, 2003, the Family Court awarded custody of the three month old child to DFS, after she sustained life threatening head injuries and multiple fractures of the ribs, arm, and legs while in the care of her parents.

At a trial beginning on November 15, 2005, the Court heard from an expert in child abuse that a reasonable parent would have noticed the child’s injuries as a result of her crying, bruising, and discomfort.  The Court also heard from Mother who testified that her work hours precluded her from noticing anything abnormal and that any discomfort the child exhibited was from the Pavlik harness that Mother thought the child was supposed to keep wearing, despite other testimony the child no longer needed the harness.  The Court also heard, but did not accept, Father’s testimony that at the time he abused the child, Mother was home, and that she knew what happened to the child.  Further, Father testified that he and Mother agreed not to seek medical attention for the child. 

Nevertheless, the Court found that the evidence presented was not clear and convincing to establish that Mother subjected the child to torture, chronic abuse, and/or life threatening abuse or that the unexplained serious physical injuries resulted from Mother’s intentional or willful conduct.  Accordingly, the Court did not grant the TPR petition.  The Court found, however, that the child remained dependent and ordered DFS to enter into a new case plan for reunification with Mother.  Because the Court did not grant the TPR petition, the Court did not address termination of Father’s rights. 

Back to Case Law