The Decision: On May 11, 2000, a landmark decision from Delaware's Supreme Court was handed down in a 4-1 decision. The case is significant to Delaware's children because the Supreme Court prioritized a child's need for permanency over a parent's biological link to a child. The facts indicate that the child was conceived as a result of statutory rape, and that ultimately the maternal grandparents of the child, who had been raising him since his birth 4.5 years ago, had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parents' rights should be terminated so that they could adopt Christopher. While the biological mother voluntarily relinquished her rights, the grandparents established that father had abandoned this child.

     The trial court denied the termination by finding the father had not failed to manifest the ability and willingness to exercise parental responsibilities, the third prong of Delaware's abandonment statute. The Supreme Court reversed saying that there was substantial evidence that father did in fact fail on this ground. Justice Berger, in her dissent, strongly articulated that the first two factors of the abandonment statute should not be considered in the third prong of the test - parental responsibilities. Parental responsibilities are defined in 13 Del. C. § 1101(10) as the "care, support and control of the child in a manner that provides for the child's necessary physical needs, including adequate food, clothing and shelter, and that also provides for the mental and emotional health and development of the child." The majority concluded that child support and contact with the child were encompassed in parental responsibilities.

     Most importantly, the Supreme Court for the first time explicitly recognized a child's need for permanency, defining it as "the safe, stable, custodial environment in which a child is raised, and the life-long relationship that child establishes with a nurturing caregiver." It recognized that permanent placement "is intended to last throughout the child's minority . . . [and] is designed to establish lifelong family relationships . . . [by] vest[ing] the permanent caregiver with the same legal responsibility for the child as a birth parent." The Court recognized that both parents desired Christopher to remain with his grandparents, and that he was happy and well adjusted there. The Court took issue with the trial court's denial of best interests on the grounds that "it was in Christopher's best interests to have an opportunity to know his biological father". Justice Berger, in her dissent, held that "there is absolutely no need to terminate father's parental rights in order to provide comfort, security, or legal status for Christopher". The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, with a remand directing the trial judge to sign the order terminating parental rights.

     From the Child's Perspective: In a perfect world, all children would have a healthy loving relationship with their biological parents. However, as the United States Supreme Court noted, "It is not the biological fact of parentage alone, however, but the existence of an actual or potential relationship that society recognizes as worthy of respect and protection, that activates the constitutional claim." Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 259-62 (1983). A biological link alone cannot overcome the well-established "best interests" standard.

     Unfortunately, for this familial situation and for Christopher, no lesser legal alternative exists in Delaware which would enable Christopher to remain permanently with his "mom and dad" (maternal grandparents). While the maternal grandparents had custody, and both parents indicated that they wanted Christopher to remain there, if either changed his or her mind tomorrow, Christopher's safe, secure and stable world would be disrupted.

     Why, you ask? Because in Delaware, if a parent can show by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is able to provide "adequate care" for the child, the court must return the child to the parent, regardless of what is best for the child. So, if mother or father filed at any time for Christopher's return, and were able to meet this minimal standard, Christopher would be removed from his grandparents. In essence, no action short of termination of parental rights in Delaware would ensure that Christopher could always remain with his grandparents.

      Justice Berger is correct in her concern that Christopher must know his heritage and his paternal family. We are hopeful that the people who love Christopher and who are now charged with looking out for his best interests, will understand and appreciate that. There is nothing which prohibits them from allowing Christopher to have contact with his paternal family, and to deny it forever, will only work to his detriment. However, from a child's perspective, we are proud that the Supreme Court recognized that children most importantly need to know that they have a permanent, loving, safe home, with a "forever family" - regardless of any biological link.

Back to Case Law