Case Summary: The Court found that, regardless of parental consent, 13 Del.C. § 2330 requires the Court to take best interests of the child into account in determination of guardianship.

      Maternal Grandmother filed a Petition for Guardianship of her grandson.  Subsequently, Mother filed an affidavit in support of Maternal Grandmother’s Petition.  The identity of the child’s biological father was unknown.  Maternal Grandmother argued that, where parental consent exists, the Court may not consider the child’s best interests.

      In September of 2004, Mother was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence, Vehicular Assault, and Reckless Endangerment of a Minor.  In October, the Court determined that it was not in the child’s best interests to reside in Mother’s home.  As a result, the child was first placed in a foster home and later placed with Maternal Grandmother.  Subsequent reunification efforts failed due to Mother’s failure to complete her case plan.

      Regarding the guardianship petition, the Court found that, since there was no parental consent from the unknown father, the Court had to consider the child’s best interests.  In addition, parental consent and best interests of the child are alternative minimum requirements that are not independently determinative. 

      In reaching this conclusion, the Court took a holistic and practical view of the relevant statutes and precedent, noting that the guardianship statutes, read as a whole, require the Court to consider the child’s best interests.  Moreover, the Court noted the many avenues available to gather evidence of the child’s best interests.  Regardless of the status of parental consent, the statute requires all guardianship petitions to address the best interests of the child. 

      Especially in a case where a parent has abrogated his/her parental rights, the parent may not strip “the State of [its] court ordered custodial rights by directing guardianship in favor of a third person.”  The Delaware statute “grants the Court liberal decision making authority in terminating [or modifying] guardianships.”  Ultimately, the Court focused on the welfare of the child as the “paramount concern.”

Back to Case Law