Case Summary: On May 23, 2005, the Delaware Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision applying the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement to a termination of parental rights decision. The Supreme Court held that because Mother was a fugitive, she could not diligently prosecute her appeal and had abandoned those claims. Accordingly, the Supreme Court barred her appeal.

     Mother had appealed from a Family Court order terminating her parental rights in her biological child. In September 2003, the biological father assaulted his then three-week-old child, who became critically injured and was hospitalized for almost a month. The Family Court placed the child in the home of relatives, who were granted temporary custody and limited guardianship. Father subsequently was charged with several offenses arising from the incident, including attempted murder of the child. He eventually pled guilty to several of the offenses, including assault in the first degree, and is currently serving a prison sentence.

     The child’s caretakers then filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both biological parents. The Family Court terminated parental rights on November 10, 2004. At that time, the biological mother, who was on level IV home confinement for forgery charges, appealed the Family Court’s decision. When the time came to file her appeal, however, she was a fugitive whose whereabouts were unknown. Mother’s counsel first filed a motion seeking to withdraw as her counsel on the basis that Mother was a fugitive. The Family Court then directed Mother’s counsel to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed because she was a fugitive who had forfeited her rights in the appeal. Mother’s counsel argued that her appeal should continue because its underlying matters were unrelated to her fugitive status.

     Relying on Crawford v. State, 94 A.2d 603 (Del. 1953), the Supreme Court held that Mother’s fugitive status makes it impossible for her to diligently prosecute her appeal. The Supreme Court noted that it “cannot permit [Mother] to frustrate the appellate process and the orderly administration of justice, when it is clear that the undue delay caused by her voluntary absence is prejudicial to the Child whose best interests are of paramount importance.” By remaining a fugitive, Mother had abandoned all claims in her appeal and accordingly the Supreme Court dismissed it.

Back to Case Law