Case Summary: This decision stems from a challenge to the applicable standard to be proven at a probable cause hearing (or a "preliminary protective hearing") where DFS has received temporary emergency custody of a child. The Court first addresses the broad framework of dependency and neglect cases, and the overall goal of locating and protecting Delaware's dependent, neglected and abused children. In that context, the Court's primary responsibility is in assuring the safety of the child and promoting the child's need for permanency. Then, within the time limits of ASFA, the Court must ensure that reasonable efforts are made to reunify parent and child. Throughout the proceedings, the paramount concern of the Court must be the child's safety and welfare. The Court found that Family Court Rule 200(d) authorizes the emergency removal of a child from a home without a hearing if the worker has alleged specific facts to support probable cause that the child is in actual, physical, mental, emotional danger or is in substantial imminent risk thereof. The probable cause hearing must be scheduled within 10 days to re-evaluate the removal. Family Court rule 202(a) uses the same language to determine whether the child should remain in custody of DFS or be sent home. The Court concludes that at the probable cause hearing, "actual danger or substantial imminent risk" is not the appropriate standard. Instead, the Court traces the definitions of dependency and neglect, and reviews the Court's authority to "declare a child to be dependent, neglected or abused . . . and to give priority to ensure the well-being and safety of the child." 10 Del. C. § 1009(a). The Court found that since statutes take precedent over court rules, the proper standard at a probable cause hearing is whether "probable cause exists to believe that a child is dependent or neglected.

Back to Case Law