Opinion
63, 2003.
Submitted: June 10, 2003.
Decided: July 23, 2003.
No. Court Below: Family Court of and File No.: 02-06-09 and 02-09-01
Appeal Dismissed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
ROCKIE L. WINGATE and VICTORIA WINGATE, Petitioners Below, Appellants, v. DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, Respondent Below, Appellee. 63, 2003. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: June 10, 2003. Decided: July 23, 2003.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices.
ORDER
Myron T. Steele, Justice:
This 23rd day of July 2003, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court as follows:
1. This is an appeal from an Order of the New Castle County Family Court dismissing Rockie L. Wingate's and Victoria Wingate's petition for adoption and denying their motion to consolidate their petition with a competing petition for adoption filed by the Division of Family Services (DFS) for the adoption of Keith Wingate (Keith), a minor child. Rockie Wingate is Keith's biological grandfather, and Victoria Wingate is Keith's step-grandmother. The parental rights of Keith's biological parents, Tanya Wingate and Keith Aiken, were terminated by Order of the Family Court on January 25, 2002. This Court affirmed the Family Court Order terminating the parental rights of Keith's biological parents on July 30, 2002.
2. Rockie Wingate sought approval for pre-adoptive placement of Keith from DFS. By letter dated June 3, 2002, DFS notified Rockie Wingate that it had denied his application. On June 11, 2002, Rockie Wingate filed an appeal from that decision under 12 Del. C. § 905 to the Family Court. Rockie and Victoria Wingate filed a separate petition in the Family Court to adopt Keith on June 12, 2002. A second petition to adopt Keith was filed in the Family Court on September 4, 2002, by Edwarda and Robert Ashby, Keith's foster care parents, through the Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, Division of Family Services (DCSYF/DFS). On October 24, 2002, the Wingates filed a motion to consolidate their petition for adoption with the adoption petition filed by DCSYF/DFS. On October 29, 2002, DFS filed an answer to the Wingate's petition and simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss the Wingate's petition for adoption. The Wingates filed an answer to the motion to dismiss on November 12, 2002. The trial judge issued her decision and order on January 7, 2003, dismissing the Wingate's petition for adoption and motion to consolidate. The trial judge held that the Wingate's petition for adoption was untimely because the residency requirement of 13 Del. C. § 913(b) had not been satisfied. The Wingate's appeal of the DFS decision denying their application for pre-adoptive placement was pending at the time of the trial judge's order dismissing their petition for adoption and denying their motion to consolidate.
3. The Wingates claim one error on appeal. The Wingates assert that the trial judge denied them due process of law by dismissing their petition for adoption and denying their motion to consolidate while their appeal of the denial for pre-adoptive placement is still pending in Family Court. The Wingates contend that for 13 Del. C. § 905 to have meaning, the competing adoption petitions must be stayed until their appeal is resolved.
4. DFS raises two arguments. First, DFS argues that this Court is prohibited from staying the Wingate's petition for adoption and the petition for adoption filed by DFS on behalf of the foster care parents because the Wingates did not seek this relief in the Family Court. Second, DFS argues that the trial judge correctly dismissed the Wingate's petition for adoption because the Wingates did not have placement of Keith in their home for at least six months as required by 13 Del. C. § 913(b).
5. This Court's review of appeals from the Family Court extends to a review of the facts and law as well as to a review of the inferences and deductions made by the trial judge. This Court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires their overturn. Moreover, this Court will not substitute its own opinion for the inferences and deductions made by the trial judge where those inferences are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process. Issues of law are reviewed de novo.
6. The adoption of a minor child by a blood relative entails a detailed process. DFS is given the power to make initial placement decisions regarding the adoption of a minor child. Pre-adoptive placement applicants, such as the Wingates, are not afforded an opportunity to appear or to be represented during the decision-making process of DFS regarding pre-adoptive placements. However, 13 Del. C. § 905, the appeal provision for pre-adoptive placement decisions, affords pre-adoptive placement applicants the right to appeal to the Family Court a DFS decision denying them pre-adoptive placement. Where a child is to be formally adopted by a stepparent or a blood relative, one may file a petition to adopt the minor child after the child has resided in the petitioner's home for at least one year or six months if there is a recommendation by the Department or a licensed agency. Furthermore, a petition for adoption may only be filed upon the fulfillment of the statutory provisions in 13 Del. C. § 904. It then follows that a blood relative must first file for pre-adoptive placement with DFS to receive custody of the child. If the blood relative is successful and gains custody of the minor child for at least one year (or six months if there is a recommendation by the Department or a licensed agency), the blood relative may then file a petition to adopt the child.
7. The Wingate's argument has merit. For the appeals provisions of 13 Del. C. § 905 to have effect and meaning, the trial judge must stay the competing adoption petitions until the Family Court resolves the Wingate's pending appeal regarding the DFS denial of their pre-adoptive placement application. The Wingates can only satisfy the residency requirements of adopting a child under 13 Del. C. § 913(b) if DFS grants them pre-adoptive placement of Keith. DFS denied the Wingates pre-adoptive placement of Keith. As a result, the Wingates did not satisfy the residency requirements under 13 Del. C. § 913(b) because Keith has not resided in their home for at least six months. However, such a literal reading of 13 Del. C. § 913(b) denies the Wingates their due process hearing rights and renders the appeal provisions of a DFS decision concerning pre-adoptive placement under 13 Del. C. § 905 meaningless. Failure to stay the competing adoption petitions denied the Wingates the opportunity to file a petition for adoption by not satisfying the residency requirements under 13 Del. C. § 913(b). Moreover, the trial judge's decision made DFS the ultimate decision maker in the adoption process, with DFS decisions shielded from judicial review any time DFS files a competing adoption petition while a 13 Del. C. § 905 appeal is pending in the Family Court. Therefore, the trial judge cannot dismiss the Wingate's petition for adoption without first resolving the Wingate's pending appeal.
Wingate v. Division of Family Servs., 803 A.2d 429 (Del. 2002).
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13 Del. C. § 905 (2003). This section is the appeals provision from decisions of the Department or licensed agency such as the DFS. This section states:
In any case where the Department or a licensed agency refuses to place a child for adoption when requested by the parent of the child, or refuses the request of any person that a child be placed with him or her for adoption, or terminates any placement prior to adoption contrary to the wishes of the birth parent or prospective adoptive parent of the child, the decision of the Department or a licensed agency in so refusing or so terminating shall be final unless within 30 days after notice of refusal or termination, the birth parent or proposed adoptive parent shall appeal to the Family Court of the county in which the adoption is proposed. The Department or licensed agency shall not remove a child who is legally free for adoption from an adoptive placement prior to the adoption without good cause.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13 Del. C. § 913(b) (2003). This section deals with the residency and time requirements for filing a petition for adoption. This section states:
In the case of a child to be adopted by a stepparent or a blood relative, the petition for adoption shall be filed only after the child has resided in the home of the petitioner for at least 1 year; except that, on recommendation of the Department or licensed agency, a petition may be filed after 6 month's continuous residence of the child in the petitioner's home. In the case of adoption by a stepparent or blood relative, it is not necessary that the child be legally free prior to the filing of the petition.
Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983) (citing Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979)).
Id.
Solis, 468 A.2d at 1279.
In re Burns, 519 A.2d 638, 643 (Del. 1986).
DEL. CODE ANN. tit 13, § 913(b) (2003).
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13 Del. C. § 904 (2003). This section states:
(a) No petition for adoption shall be presented unless prior to the filing of the petition the be adopted has been placed for adoption by the Department, a licensed agency or an authorized agency, and the placement has been supervised by the Department or a licensed agency, but no such placement or supervision shall be necessary in the case of:
(1) A child sought to be adopted by a stepparent;
(2) A child sought to be adopted by a blood relative, except as provided in § 926 of this title.
(b) No placement for an identified adoption in which an intermediary has been involved shall be approved or permitted by the Department or a licensed agency.
(c) No child shall be placed for adoption in this State pursuant to § 926 of this title unless the placement is approved and supervised by the Department or a licensed agency.
(d) When the prospective adoptive parents are legal residents of the State, but live elsewhere, the approval and supervision required by this section shall be provided by an authorized agency located in close proximity to the family, as will the social report required by § 912 of this title.
(e) An adoptive placement shall not be made until a preplacement evaluation that complies with the Delaware Requirements for Child Placing Agencies has been completed by the Department or licensed agency.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the judgment of the Family Court is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Jurisdiction is retained.
DEL. SUPR.CT.R. 19(c).