Opinion
No. 643, 2014
11-16-2015
Division of Family Services, Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. Matthew James, Sr., Respondent Below, Appellee.
ORDER
James T. Vaughn, Jr., Justice.
**1 This 16th day of November 2015, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and supplemental memorandum and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, the Division of Family Services (“DFS”), filed this appeal from a Family Court decision accepting the order of a Family Court Commissioner and dismissing DFS' petition for an Order of Protection from Abuse (“PFA order”). On appeal, DFS contends that the Family Court erred in concluding that the termination of the Father's parental rights over four of his children (“the Children”) meant that the Father and the Children did not have a relationship within the classes of relationships protected by the PFA statute. After careful consideration of the briefs and the record below, we hold that the Family Court erred in concluding that the termination of the Father's parental rights meant that the Father and the Children did not have a relationship within the classes of relationships protected by the PFA statute. Accordingly, we reverse the Family Court's judgment and remand this matter for the Family Court to determine whether DFS, on behalf of the Children, can show the Father perpetrated abuse against the Children.
(2) In November 2013, the Family Court terminated the Father's parental rights in the Children and vested full custodial rights in DFS. The Family Court concluded that DFS had established by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination existed and that termination was in the Children's best interests. On appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment of the Family Court.
(3) On June 23, 2014, DFS, on behalf of the Children, filed a petition for a PFA order against the Father. On June 30, 2014, DFS sought an emergency ex parte PFA order, alleging that the Father was harassing the Children and disrupting their lives. The Family Court issued a temporary PFA order.
(4) On July 8, 2014, a hearing was held on DFS' petition for a PFA order. The Family Court Commissioner determined as a threshold matter that the termination of the Father's parental rights meant that the Father and Children did not fall within the protected classes covered by 10 Del. C. § 1041(2) because they were not within the definition of family under 10 Del C. § 901(12). Based on this conclusion, the Family Court dismissed DFS' petition for a PFA order. The Family Court Commissioner did not address whether the Father's actions constituted abuse under 10 Del C. § 1041(1).
(5) DFS requested review of the Family Court Commissioner's decision, in a decision dated October 20, 2014, the Family Court found no merit to DFS' objections and accepted the Family Court Commissioner's order dismissing DFS' petition for a PFA order. The Family Court held that: (i) the definition of family under Section 901(12) was ambiguous because reasonable minds could differ on whether the definition included the relationship of a child and a parent whose parent's rights over the child had been terminated; and (ii) based upon a review of language in other statutes and two of this Court's decisions as well as the “absurd” consequences of including relationships where parental rights have been terminated within the definition of family, the General Assembly did not intend the definition of family to include a child and an individual who previously held parental rights over the child. This appeal followed.