Case Summary: This was a termination of parental rights trial which took place over 5 days, and chronicled more than a decade of substance abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse of the children, mental health issues, housing and financial issues. At the time of the hearing, the children had been in foster care placement for approximately eight years, had at least nine DFS workers, and two of the children had been in more than six foster homes each.
     The DFS began its involvement with this family in 1989, and provided sporadic services and supports to the family until the children entered foster care in 1993. The Court recognized the sheer number of services and case plans designed to reunite mother with her children, and mother's repeated failure to complete the necessary services to be reunified with her children.
In terminating parental rights, the Court recognized the eight years of foster care and the resulting issues these children faced under our old child welfare system. The Court found that this case "is an example of the need for modification in the way this nation's child welfare system handles children placed in foster care." In response to mother's last minute attempts to parent her children, the Court found "[I]t is not enough for parents to ignore their obligations under case plans for years, abandoning their children to the foster care system, only to make an unsupported claim at the termination stage that they are now in a position to reassume custody. Children deserve better than that."
     Finally, in terminating parental rights, the Court found it was in all three children's best interests, despite the fact the oldest child objected to the termination. While the Court respected the child wishes and factored them into his decision, the Court noted that they are but one factor in a best interests determination, and that allowing [mother] to retain parental rights in this child would serve the child no purpose.

     From the Child's Perspective: This case and the lengthy history of dysfunction and abuse that accompany it provide, as the Court noted, a prime example of the need for change in the policy, practice and procedure of child welfare. With Delaware's Court Improvement Project and ASFA, we are well on our way to effectuating that change. We applaud the Court for its thorough examination of the evidence, and its recognition of the harm done to these children in limbo while reunification services were continually provided to mother. We also applaud the Court's recognition that children do deserve better. We also applaud DFS for its tireless efforts on behalf of these children.

Back to Case Law