Opinion
File No.: 20-01-08TN Petition No.: 20-00532
08-28-2020
DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND THEIR FAMILIES ("DSCYF"), Petitioner, v. H S , Respondent.
Wendy R. Danner, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney for Petitioner, Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families Jessica B. Markowski-Kelly, Esquire, Attorney for Respondent, H S Melanie George-Smith, Esquire, Attorney for Child
IN RE: L S (born / /2012) ORDER ON PETITION FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS Date Submitted: August 28, 2020 Wendy R. Danner, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney for Petitioner, Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families Jessica B. Markowski-Kelly, Esquire, Attorney for Respondent, H S Melanie George-Smith, Esquire, Attorney for Child Arrington, Judge
INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is a Petition for Termination and Transfer of Parental Rights ("TPR") filed by the Department of Services for Children, Youth, and their Families ("DSCYF"), against H S (herein "Mother") in the interests of L S ("L " or "Child") (born , 2012).
The Court held a TPR Hearing on August 28, 2020. Present for the hearing were Wendy R. Danner, Esquire, DAG ("Ms. Danner"), attorney for DSCYF; Jessica B. Markowski-Kelly, Esquire ("Ms. Kelly"), attorney for Mother; and Melanie George-Smith, Esquire ("Ms. Smith"), attorney for Child. Also present for the hearing were Angelina Smith, DSCYF worker; Bethany Ash, DSCYF worker; K C , Foster Parent; and L L , CASA. Mother did not appear for the TPR hearing on August 28, 2020.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS DSCYF's Petition for Termination of Parental Rights on the basis of abandonment. Pursuant to this Order, the parental rights of Mother and Father are hereby TERMINATED AND TRANSFERRED to DSCYF.
JURISDICTION
Mother was served by publication of the TPR Petition and Hearing in the News Journal Paper on February 7, 2020, February 10, 2020, and February 18, 2020. Mother appeared in Court from the TPR hearing on February 25, 2020. DSCYF amended the TPR Petition and Mother was served on February 25, 2020. Mother was appointed Counsel on June 15, 2020. The TPR hearing on the amended petition was set for August 28, 2020. Mother's counsel appeared for the hearing. Mother was not present. The Court called Mother's mobile phone which was answered by the person who runs the home where Mother lives. Mother was not present in the home and did not respond to requests from the person who runs the home. Child is not a member of an eligible Indian tribe for purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
This Court has jurisdiction over the TPR Petition through publication, personal service on Mother on February 25, 2020, Mother's appearance on February 25, 2020, and Counsel's appearance for Mother on August 28, 2020.
DUE PROCESS
No evidence was presented, nor were there any arguments proffered, from which the Court could conclude that Mother had been denied due process, or that DSCYF removed the Child in such a way as to deprive the parents of their due process rights.
Mother was represented by Jessica Markowski-Kelly, Esquire, when she first appeared on February 25, 2020 for the Third Review Hearing and TPR Hearing. Notice was provided to all Counsel for each hearing. Ms. Kelly stated that she spoke with Mother prior to the August 28, 2020 hearing and that Mother stated her intention to appear for the hearing. The Court Appointed Special Advocate spoke with Mother on August 13, 2020 about the petition and reminded her about the hearing on August 28, 2020. Mother stated her intention to appear for the hearing.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
DSCYF requested without objection from Mother's counsel or Child's counsel that the Court take judicial notice of the following Orders, the findings of which shall be incorporated in this decision: May 30, 2019 Ex Parte Order of removal; June 25, 2019 Adjudicatory Hearing Order; August 12, 2019 Dispositional Hearing Order; November 4, 2019 Review Hearing - 1 Order; January 27, 2020 Review Hearing - 2 Order; and February 25, 2020 Review Hearing - 2 Order.
The Court admitted six exhibits introduced by DSCYF with the consent of Mother's counsel and Child's counsel: Pleadings in Case No. 19-14875; Social Report in Case No. 20-00532; Authorization to Disclose and Release medical information limited only to Child; Certified Criminal History of Mother; ten photographs of Child with his foster family; and Financial Report of $15,147.29 in child support owed by Mother for her older child currently in guardianship with the Maternal Grandmother.
DSCYF filed for custody of the Child on May 24, 2019. The Court signed an Ex Parte Order awarding temporary emergency custody to DSCYF on the same date. The bases for the Ex Parte Order were that Mother had stated that she is unable to care for Child and left him at Brandywine Counseling. Mother lost her housing and was addicted to opiates. Mother continued to use marijuana and had a positive drug screen for cocaine. Father was deceased. Mother stated that there are no relatives available to provide care.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt. #1.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt. #4.
A Preliminary Protective Hearing was conducted on May 29, 2019. Mother did not appear for the hearing. The Court found probable cause that Child was dependent and neglected by Mother due to her abandonment of Child; lack of stable housing; mental health history of bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and borderline personality disorder; active use of cocaine and marijuana; and outstanding capiases. The Court provided Mother with supervised visitation at least one time per week at Mother's request. Mother never attended visitation. The Court reported that the child had been placed in a DFS foster home and was doing well in the placement.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt. #6.
The Court held the Adjudicatory Hearing on June 25, 2019. The Court found that Father died on July 14, 2016. Mother did not attend the hearing. The Court found that Child continued to be dependent and neglected by Mother. Mother had failed to ever place Child in school even though Child was nearly 7 years old. The Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother had abandoned the Child with Brandywine Counseling and departed prior to the meeting with DSCYF. Mother was unemployed and had no working phone number. Mother had no contact with Child since she abandoned him in May 2019. The child continued placement in the foster home of K and S C in Middletown, Delaware. The foster parents enrolled him in school and obtained psychological counseling to address abandonment and adjustment issues. Mother was allowed to have visitation upon her request.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt, #9.
The Court held the Dispositional Hearing on August 12, 2019. Mother did not appear for the hearing. The Court noted that Mother has an older child who was placed with the Maternal Grandmother who directed DSCYF not to contact her any further. The Maternal Grandmother refused to provide any information on possible relatives for placement of Child. The Court found that Child continued to be dependent and neglected by Mother who had failed to make any contact with Child since May 2019. Mother was allowed to have visitation upon her request.
Dkt. #11.
Mother's case plan was admitted into evidence at the Dispositional Hearing. Mother's case plan was not approved by Mother but included the following elements: (1) Obtaining stable housing; (2) Maintaining consistent employment to provide financially for Child's needs; (3) Completing an alcohol and other drugs assessment and following the treatment recommendations; (4) Addressing Mother's mental health issues; and (5) Starting and attending visits with Child.
Id.
The First Review Hearing was conducted on November 4, 2019. Mother did not appear for the hearing. The Order reported that Mother had refused to allow any contact from DFS and had not seen Child since at least May 24, 2019. Child reported that he was forced to do squats and was punched in the stomach "for saying a bad word." The Court found that the Child was dependent, neglected, and abused based upon the testimony at the hearing.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt. #12.
The Court found that Child continued to do well in the C foster home. He had seen his new physician and dentist. He was given an eye patch to train the healthier eye. Mother was allowed to have visitation upon her request. The Court additionally found that DSCYF was making reasonable efforts toward the permanency plan in effect, which was reunification at that time.
Id.
A Second Review Hearing was held on January 27, 2020. Mother did not appear for this hearing and continued to limit her communications with DSCYF through Brandywine Counseling. As of August 15, 2019, and at all times since, Mother had refused to allow Brandywine Counseling to disclose any information to DSCYF on Mother's drug screens or participate in treatment.
Petitioner's Exhibit 3.
On December 11, 2019, DSCYF filed a Motion to Change Goal from Reunification to TPR. The Court deferred a decision on the Motion until the Second Review Hearing. The Motion was granted as Mother did not appear for the hearing and had made no efforts to see Child or reach DSCYF since May 24, 2019.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt. #14.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt. #15.
The Court found that the Child continued to be dependent, neglected, and abused by Mother. The Child remained in placement in the C foster home and was making significant progress in bonding with all of the foster family. Mother was allowed to have visitation upon her request.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt. #17.
Following publication of the TPR petition and February 25, 2020 hearing date, Mother appeared for the first time. Mother stated her objection to the TPR Petition and the Court appointed Counsel for Mother. The Court conducted a Third Review Hearing on February 25, 2020 in lieu of the TPR hearing. Mother admitted that she had not had any contact with Child since May 2019. She remained unemployed. She further admitted that she was homeless but was living at that time "at a friend's home." Mother's name was not on the lease. The Court found that Mother had not complied with any part of her case plan.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt. #18.
The Child continued to do well in his foster placement. He was enrolled in first grade and was up to date on his medical and dental appointments. The Child's own statements about his prior living conditions supported the need for appropriateness of the placement. Significantly, Child had not mentioned Mother for approximately seven months.
Id.
On February 25, 2020, DSCYF amended the TPR petition to add abandonment as a grounds for TPR. Mother was served with the Amended Petition in Court. Counsel was appointed for Mother and the TPR Hearing was set for August 28, 2020 to allow Mother time to prepare her defense. Termination of Parental Rights Hearing.
(Case No. 19-14875) Dkt. #19.
On August 28, 2020, the Court convened for the TPR hearing. Mother did not appear for the hearing. The Court questioned Mother's counsel about Mother's knowledge of the hearing. Ms. Kelly confirmed that Mother had received a copy of the Amended TPR Petition and that Ms. Kelly had spoken with Mother to prepare for the hearing. Ms. Kelly confirmed that Mother was aware of the hearing and had stated her intention to appear. The Court attempted to reach Mother by phone to allow her to participate but was unsuccessful. The phone number that Mother had provided the Court was for the home where she was staying. The person answering the phone confirmed that Mother resided with her but that Mother was not at the home at present.
Ms. Kelly was asked whether she was prepared to present Mother's case and was asked for a proffer of what Mother would have testified if she were present. Ms. Kelly stated that Mother was prepared to testify that: (1) Mother had not abandoned Child because she had Brandywine Counseling contact DFS; (2) Mother was protecting Child from domestic violence; and (3) Mother did not believe that she was allowed to visit with Child. Counsel for DSCYF and Child had no objection to the proffer.
DSCYF called Angelina Smith, DFS worker, to testify. Ms. Smith testified that on or about May 24, 2019, Mother left Child with Brandywine Counseling and said that she could not take care of Child. DFS arrived at Brandywine Counseling to find that Mother had disappeared. DFS filed for and was granted an ex parte order on the same day. DFS had contact with Mother from May 25, 2020 through May 28, 2019 at which time Mother told DFS that she "did not have time to meet with DFS."
Mother admitted to continued use of heroin, alcohol, and cocaine. She stated that there were no relatives who would provide care for Child. DFS substantiated Mother for abandonment at that time. Mother has a history of neglect of her older child who was subsequently placed with the Maternal Grandmother. Mother owes over $15,000 in child support to the Maternal Grandmother. DFS attempted to reach the Maternal Grandmother who instructed DFS not to contact her any further.
Petitioner's Exhibit 6.
Ms. Smith testified that Child was bonded with the foster parents as shown by his attachment to each member of the foster family, his reference to them as Mom and Dad, and his lack of reference to Mother at any time. Ms. Smith further testified to the numerous efforts of DFS to get Mother involved with Child, all of which were rejected by Mother.
Bethany Ash, a DFS permanency/adoption worker, testified she had worked with Child since December 2019 to early January 2020. She testified to Child's progress in the second grade, his medical appointments, dental work, and eye appointments. Ms. Ash testified that the foster parents applied for approval as pre-adoptive parents of Child and that the DFS Permanency Committee had granted the approval.
K C , foster father, testified that Child works with M M at the Mind and Body Consortium every three weeks. He stated that Child has become a "video game expert" with the able assistance of his foster brother. Mr. C recounted Child's unsolicited statement that Mother "was looking for a boyfriend and found a demon." Child had seen domestic violence and was aware of drugs. Child discussed how drugs killed his birth father and that Mother used drugs. He further stated that Mother's boyfriend was violent. Mr. C testified that Child is still working on the past abuse that he suffered.
CASA, L L , testified that she has been involved with Child since June 2019. She stated that "L is doing fantastic." He is excited that he has learned to read and is experiencing some normalcy in his life. Ms. L stated that she had spoken with Mother on August 13, 2020. Mother confirmed to Ms. L that she knew about the hearing and intended on appearing. Mother told Ms. L that she relapses "off and on" no less than once per month. Mother further stated that she had not tried to find work because she is working on her own spirituality and she receives enough public support so she doesn't need to work. Mother further stated that when Child lived with Mother, he would "head butt" her and was uncontrollable. Finally, Mother stated that she wished that she had a foster father like Mr. C because it was clear to Mother that he cared deeply for Child.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
DSCYF believes that there is clear and convincing evidence that it is in the Child's best interest for the parental rights of Mother and Father to be terminated and transferred to DSCYF on the ground of abandonment.
Mother opposes Termination and Transfer of her Parental Rights to DSCYF but presented no case. The Court accepts the proffer of Mother's counsel but finds that the statements lack any basis in fact in this case.
On behalf of the Child, Ms. Smith echoed DSCYF's position that it is in the Child's best interest for the parental rights of Mother and Father to be terminated at this time.
DISCUSSION
The United States Supreme Court has held that a parent's interests in his or her children is one of the "oldest of fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the] Court." In addition, the Supreme Court has found that so long as a parent is fit, "there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children." Likewise, the Delaware Supreme Court has found that parental rights are "fundamental liberties" which may not be abrogated absent compelling circumstances.
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S., 57, 65 (2000.)
Id. at 68-69.
In re Stevens, 652 A.2d 18, 24 (Del. 1995). See also Daber v. Div. of Child Protective Srvs. 470 A.2d 723, 726 (Del. 1983).
Although parental rights are important liberty interests, both the United States Supreme Court and the Delaware Supreme Court have acknowledged that the State has the power to limit parental rights to protect a child's health and welfare. In addition, the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 ("ASFA") emphasizes the importance of child safety and a child's needs for permanency by placing limits on the amount of time in which parents may rehabilitate themselves and assume their parental responsibilities, provided that the State has developed a meaningful case plan for the parents and made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. In accordance with Court rules, a hearing addressing permanency for children in foster care must be "held not later than 12 months from the time the child has 'entered foster care'."
See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-67 (1944).
In re K.L.T., 2001 WL 493113 (Del. Fam. Ct. Jan. 22, 2001).
Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 216 referencing Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. R 209(d).
In Delaware, the statutory standard for terminating parental rights consists of a two-part analysis. First, the Court must be satisfied that one or more of the enumerated statutory grounds set forth in 13 Del. C. §1103(a) has been established. If the statutory basis is failure to plan, the Court must review whether the State developed a meaningful case plan and made reasonable efforts to reunify the family or avoid out of home placement. Second, the Court must find that severing the parental ties is in the best interests of the child as that term is defined in 13 Del. C. §722.
See Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000).
Id. See also In re Hanks, 553 A.2d 830, 833 (Del. 1982).
D.F.S. v. N.S. and R.T. 2009 WL 5206720, at *18 (Del. Fam. Ct. Dec. 11, 2009).
In re Hanks, 553 A.2d at 833.
A clear and convincing standard is required for terminating parental rights due to the permanent nature of the proceedings and the importance of the parental rights at stake. The clear and convincing standard requires greater factual certainty than a preponderance of the evidence standard, thereby striking a fair balance between the rights of the parent and the State's legitimate concerns. The Delaware Supreme Court has described the clear and convincing standard of proof as "evidence that 'produces in the mind of the trier of face an abiding conviction that the truth of [the] factual contentions [is] 'highly probable.'" In addition, clear and convincing evidence "means to provide something that is highly probable, reasonably certain, and free from serious doubt.
See Patricia A.F. v. James R.F., 451 A.2d 830, 832 (Del. 1982).
Id.
Hudak v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140, 147 (Del. Supr. 2002).
Clark v. Clark, 994 A.2d 744 (Table) *3 (Del. Supr. 2010).
The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law under the clear and convincing standard described above.
Statutory Ground for Termination of Parental Rights
DSCYF chose to limit they case to the ground of abandonment and did not present a case for failure to plan. Under 13 Del C. §1103(a)(2)(a)(2), DSCYF must show: (1) that Mother intended to abandon a Child over six months of age, and that (2) for a period of at least six months prior to filing of the petition, (3) Mother failed to communicate or visit regularly with Child; and (4) Mother failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the Child, if, during this time, the Child was not in the physical custody of the other parent. Termination of Mother's Parental Rights
13 Del.C. § 1103(a)(2)(a)(2).
DSCYF seeks termination of Mother's parental rights on the ground of abandonment pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(2)(a)(2). DSCYF must first establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mother intended to abandon Child. Mother's decision to leave her six year old child with Brandywine Counseling and not meet with DFS for planning for an additional nine months is clear and convincing evidence of that intent. Mother's proffer that she did not intend to abandon Child lacks any factual support in the record. Contrary to Mother's assertion that she contacted DFS, the record is clear that Mother left Child with Brandywine Counseling and then left the facility herself. It was Brandywine Counseling that contacted DFS and Mother was already gone when DFS arrived. There have been findings of the Court at each stage of the proceedings that Mother had abandoned Child. The Court finds that Mother intended to abandon, and did abandon, L on May 24, 2019.
Second, DSCYF must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mother continued to leave Child abandoned for six months prior to filing the TPR Petition. DSCYF filed the Amended Petition on February 25, 2020. Therefore, Mother must have continued to leave Child as abandoned since at least August 25, 2019. The record contains evidence that Mother made no efforts to contact Child since May 24, 2019. Therefore, Mother has exceeded the six months requirement by an additional three months.
Third, DSCYF must prove by clear and convincing evidence that during the six months prior to filing the TPR Petition, Mother failed to communicate or visit regularly with Child. Mother abandoned the Child on May 24, 2019. She has not visited, seen, spoken with, or written to Child since the abandonment. Mother's proffer that she did not believe that she could visit with Child lacks any support in the record. Each Order specified that Mother was entitled to visits upon her request. However, despite the efforts of DFS and the ability to have visits upon request, Mother failed to try to contact DFS at any time during the six months prior to the filing of the TPR Petition.
The Court finds that DSCYF has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother failed to communicate or visit regularly with Child during the six months prior to filing of the Amended Petition.
Fourth, DSCYF must show by clear and convincing evidence that during the six months prior to filing the Amended Petition, Mother failed to manifest an ability or willingness to assume legal and physical custody of Child who was, during this time, in the custody of DSCYF. Mother made no proffers related to this prong of the analysis.
DSCYF created a Case Plan for Mother that was approved by the Court on August 12, 2019. The Case Plan set forth five areas in which Mother would need to show at least minimal improvement in order to "manifest an ability or willingness to assume legal and physical custody." Mother failed to show progress under any of the elements of the case plan. Mother remains without stable housing. She is not named on a lease and she is purportedly living with "a friend." Not only is Mother unemployed, but she sees no need to look for work. Mother's statement that she is not looking for employment so that she can develop her "own spirituality" shows an affirmative desire to not find suitable work. Mother's admissions to the CASA of her continued usage of cocaine and other opiates at least monthly shows no progress on becoming drug-free.
The definition of "dependency" is found in 10 Del.C. §901(8) and states, in pertinent part,
"Dependency" or "dependent child" means that a person:
a. Is responsible for the care, custody, and/or control of the child; and
b. Does not have the ability and/or financial means to provide for the care of the child and
1. Fails to provide necessary care with regard to: food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, medical care or other care necessary for the child's emotional, physical or mental health, or safety and general well-being; or
2. The child is living in the home of an "adult individual" who fails to meet the definition of "relative" in this section on an extended basis without an assessment by DSCYF, or its licensed agency; or
3. The child has been placed with a licensed agency which certifies it cannot complete a suitable adoption plan.
10 Del.C. § 901(8). --------
In order to show that Mother has the ability or willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the Child, she must be able to prove that the Child would not be dependent in her care. In this case, Mother does not have the financial resources to provide for L . Moreover, Mother sees no need to obtain that ability. Mother has no housing of her own and cannot provide L with shelter. She has no resources to prove that she can provide food or clothing for him. Mother failed to enroll L in kindergarten or first grade. His education did not start until he was in foster care. L had multiple cavities and an eye problem that went unaddressed until he was in foster care. L recounts incidents where he was forced to do squats and was punched in the stomach for "saying a bad word." There is no evidence that Mother cared enough for L to provide for his physical or mental health, safety, or general well-being. Rather, she abandoned him with a drug treatment facility and left.
The Court finds that DSCYF has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother has not manifested that ability or willingness to assume legal and physical custody of L . DSCYF has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence for each of the prongs for abandonment under 13 Del.C. § 1103(a)(2)(a)(2). Best Interests of the Children
1. Statutory Factors
Even when one or more of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights has been established, the Petition should not be granted unless it is determined by clear and convincing evidence that the termination is in the children's best interests. In making this determination, the Court must consider all relevant factors set forth in 13 Del. C. §722.
1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
Mother abandoned Child on May 24, 2019 and showed no signs of interest in contact with him until after TPR Petition was filed.
Factor one favors granting the TPR.
2. The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian(s) and residential arrangements;
Child is seven years old and clearly articulates that he wishes to live with his foster parents.
Factor two favors granting the TPR.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents , grandparents , siblings , persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child , any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interest;
Child has one relative that does not wish to have contact with him. Mother owes over $15,000 in support to the Maternal Grandmother which may be a factor in her decision. Irrespective of the rationale, there are no other relatives with whom Child is close. Conversely, Child has developed significant bonding with the foster family as a whole. He looks to the foster parents as his Mom and Dad while never mentioning his Mother.
Factor three weighs in favor of granting the TPR.
4. The child's adjustment to his or her home , school , and community;
The Child has resided with the Connor family since May 2019. He is comfortable in the home and is receiving all of the services that this little boy deserves. He now has a school that he attends and is proud that he has learned to read. His experience with Mother contrasts sharply as he recalls being abused, subjected to domestic violence, and having experienced his parents drug use destroy their lives.
Factor four weighs in favor of granting the TPR.
5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
Mother has diagnosed mental health conditions and a drug dependency that severely affects her ability to provide care for a child. L is healthy and happy.
Factor four strongly favors granting the TPR.
6. Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under §701 of this title;
Parents need to show children that they are loved and important. In this case, Mother abandoned Child and never attempted to contact him. The foster parents have created a loving environment and have welcomed L into their family life. Mother owes more than $15,000 in child support for her older child but does not seek employment.
Factor six weighs in favor of granting the TPR.
7. Evidence of domestic violence as provided in Chapter 7A of this title; and
L experienced domestic violence in Mother's care and remains affected by it. Mother proffers that she was trying to protect Child from domestic violence but has done nothing to remove herself from that negative dynamic.
Factor seven favors granting the TPR.
8. The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction or a conviction of a criminal offense.
Mother has minor criminal offenses that do not factor into this decision.
This factor is not relevant in the case at hand.
2. Position of the CASA
The CASA supports granting the TPR on the basis of L 's need for permanency and Mother's lack of housing and lack of progress in moving toward any stability. Additionally, due to the significant progress that he has made in his foster placement, the CASA fears for any reversal of that progress. The CASA believes that the Child should begin working toward adoption as soon as possible.
3. Court Finding of Best Interests
Considering the statutory factors of 13 Del C. §722, the evidence presented at trial, and the position of the CASA, the Court concludes, based on clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interests of the Child for his parents' parental rights to be terminated.
At the start of the dependency case, Mother was residing in an inappropriate home and not providing adequate care for L when she abandoned him. Fifteen months later, Mother continues to lack housing and sees no need to become employed. She continues to use drugs on a monthly basis and has shown no real interest in a relationship with L . Furthermore, Mother did not utilize any of the many services that were provided to her through the proceedings. Mother's lack of attendance and lack of effort throughout the proceeding makes it evident that TPR is in L 's best interest.
CONCLUSION
DSCYF has established by clear and convincing evidence that Mother's parental rights should be terminated on the grounds of failure to plan provided in 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(2)(a)(2). DSCYF has also established by clear and convincing evidence that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother with the Children. Furthermore, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the Child's best interest for his Mother's parental rights to be terminated.
Therefore, the Court grants DSCYF's Petition to Termination and Transfer of Parental Rights. The Court hereby orders that Mother's parental rights to L S (born / /2012) are terminated and transferred to DSCYF until the Child is adopted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8/28/2020
Date Written Order Issued
/s/Michael W . Arrington
MICHAEL W. ARRINGTON, JUDGE