Case Summary: Father appealed a Family Court decision terminating his rights in four children.  Between 1990 and 1997, DFS investigated claims against Father of child abuse, neglect, sexual abuse and deplorable living conditions.  As a result, in December 1997, the four children were placed in foster care.

Subsequently, DFS filed a petition to terminate Father's rights,  The Family Court denied that petition in 2001.  Following that ruling, DFS entered into a case plan to reunite Father with his children. 

In March 2004, DFS filed a second petition to terminate Father's parental rights.  At the hearing, the Family Court heard evidence that Father had not secured adequate living conditions, that he suffered from a personality disorder, that he had failed to financially support the children, that the children suffered from abuse he had inflicted upon them and that it would not be in the children’s best interest to reside with their father.

Specifically, two doctors who examined Father testified that he suffers from a personality disorder.  Additionally, the children testified to Father's physical and sexual abuse as well as to the fact that they did not wish to be reunified with him.  Moreover, therapists testified to the grave damage it would cause to the children if they were to be reunited with their father.  Based on those findings, the Family Court terminated Father's parental rights in all four children. 

Father appealed the order.  In the appeal, Father argued that DFS had not made reasonable efforts to reunite the family, stating that there was no opportunity for counseling.  The Supreme Court rejected that argument because two doctors had concluded that Father was untreatable and that counseling would be futile.  Also, the Court found it clear that the children desired no relationship with their father.  Thus, the Court held, DFS met the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to reunite the family. 

      In addition to proving that it made reasonable efforts toward reunification, the Court upheld the Family Court conclusion that DFS proved Father failed to plan adequately for the children’s physical needs or mental and emotional health, pursuant to 13 Del.C. § 1103(a)5.  The Court found that Father did not plan for his children’s needs based on his lack of proper accommodations and inability to provide financial support as well as the testimony of the doctors and therapists.  Therefore, termination of Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. 

Back to Case Law