Case Summary: DFS sought termination of parental rights to a child born in February of 2000. The maternal grandfather also filed a petition for termination of parental rights and/or guardianship, and requested that the petitions be consolidated. The Court denied the consolidation request on the grounds that CASA was also involved with the case and had not been served with Grandfather's petition. Nor did Grandfather have standing to participate as a party in a petition brought by DFS, and little judicial economy would be served by consolidation in that the burdens of proof on DFS versus Grandfather were quite different. The Court did, however, rule that if DFS' petition were granted, Grandfather could request that his petition for guardianship be considered before any petition for adoption. DFS sought termination on failure to plan grounds under 13 Del.Co. §1103(a)(5). The Court found that both parents were unable and had failed to adequately plan for physical needs and mental health of the. The Court found that the child had been in DFS' care for almost 2 years and that there was a history of neglect, abuse of lack of care. The Mother had a history of drug addiction, incarceration and mental health issues and the Father had a history of incarceration as well as several other children who were being raised by various relatives instead of by Father. The Court found that the child was bonded to the foster family and that failure to terminate would result in continued emotional instability for the child. The Court also followed the best interest analysis under 13 Del.Co, §722(a) and found that it was in the child's best interest to terminate parental rights. The Mother made arguments that DFS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the family because DFS did not place the child with relatives with the hope of ultimate placement with the Mother. Mother cited 42 U.S.C. §671(a)(19). The Court found that the wording does not require placement with relatives -- only that relatives are to be considered. Furthermore, the Court concluded that DFS did attempt to place him with relatives and that nothing in the statute requires DFS to continue trying if the relatives decline to take responsibility. Lastly, the Mother argued that DFS filed for termination too soon citing 42 U.S.C §675 (5)(E). The Court concluded that Mother misread the 15 months stated in the statue as a minimum and it is clearly read as a maximum rule.

Back to Case Law