DSCYF v. A.R. J.M.

1
IN THE FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR
FAMILIES (DSCYF),
§
§
§
§
File No.: CN22-05754
25-02-02TN
Petitioner, § Petition Nos.: 24-04264
§ 25-02410
v. §
§
A----- R----- AND §
J------- M----- §
§
Respondents. §
ORDER
Date Submitted: October 21, 2025
Date Decided: December 5, 2025
Date Written Decision Signed: December 5, 2025
Date Written Decision Mailed: December 5, 2025
Victoria Witherell, Esquire, Attorney for Petitioner, Department of Services for Children,
Youth, and Their Families
Emily Maguire, Esquire, Attorney for Respondent, A----- R-----
Vernon Vassallo, Esquire, Attorney for Respondent, J------- M-----
David Holloway, Esquire, Child Attorney
In the Interests of: C----- M-----, born ------- --, 2015
A------ M-----, born --- --, 2018
J--- M-----, born --- --, 2020
J------ M-----, born ------- -, 2021
Newell, C.J.

2
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 A----- R----- (“Mother”) and J------- M----- (“Father”)
concerning J------ M----- (“J------”), born ------- -, 2021 , J--- M----- (“J---”), born --- --,
2020, A------ M----- (“A------”), born --- --, 2018, and C----- M----- (“C-----”), born ------- --,
2015.
The Court held trial on the TPR Petition on October 21, 2025. Present for the
hearing were: Victoria Witherell, Esquire (“Ms. Witherell”), attorney for DSCYF; Mother,
represented by Emily Maguire, Esquire (“Ms. Maguire”); Father, represented by Vernon
Vassallo, Esquire (“Mr. Vassallo”); David Holloway, Esquire (“Mr. Holloway”), on behalf
of the children; and J------- F-------- (“Ms. F--------”), CASA Coordinator. Also present for
the hearing were: M------ W------ (“Mr. W------”), Limen House; S------ H---- (“Ms. H---- ”),
DSCYF treatment worker; J----- R-------- (“Mr. R--------”), Essentials Recovery
(“Essentials”); M------- M------- (“Ms. M-------”), DSCYF permanency worker; A----- M-----
(“Ms. M-----”), foster parent to C-----, A------, and J---; N----- S----- (“Ms. S-----”), Pressley
Ridge; and J------ M---- (“Ms. M----”), Pressley Ridge.
DSCYF offered testimony from Mr. W------, Ms. H----, Mr. R--------, Ms. M-------,
Ms. M-----, and Ms. S-----. Mother and Father testified at the proceeding. Mr. Holloway
proffered, without objection, about the children’s wishes, which were expressed to Ms.
F--------. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS DSCYF’s Petition for TPR
as to Mother and Father. Pursuant to this Order, the parental rights of Mother and

3
Father are TERMINATED and TRANSFERRED to DSCYF until C-----, A------, J---, and
J------ are adopted.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY & FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On October 21, 2025, DSCYF offered the Court’s prior dependency/neglect
orders in this case into evidence as DSCYF’s Exhibit 1, collectively, without objection.
The social report and its addendum were admitted as DSCYF’s Exhibit 21, without
objection. Pursuant to Powell v. DSCYF, the Court reviews these prior orders under a
clear and convincing standard.2 The certified criminal histories of Mother and Father
were admitted as DSCYF’s Exhibit 3 and 4, respectively, without objection.
DSCYF has had an open treatment case with the family since February 14, 2020,
due to a history of physical neglect, emotional neglect, and physical abuse of all four
children. Prior to the instant case, the family had twenty-four prior DSCYF investigations
and three treatment cases. In the instant case, Ms. H---- testified that there have been
nine intakes and five investigations, including a report by the Wilmington Police
Department. On February 22, 2024, Ms. H---- met with C----- and A------ at their school,
---------- -------. Ms. H---- noticed a large burn on A------’s chest, measuring
approximately seven by five inches. Ms. H---- testified that A------ sustained the burn
while cooking noodles without parental supervision. All four children were taken to
Nemours Children’s Hospital (“Nemours”) for an assessment, where the physician
confirmed A------’s chest burn. Mother and Father did not seek treatment for the
significant, visible burn, which raised concerns of medical neglect.
1 The original social report dated March 27, 2025, was drafted by the DSCYF permanency worker, M-------
M-------. The addendum to the social report was submitted to the Court on October 20, 2025.
2 Powell v. Dep’t of Servs for Child., Youth & Their Fams., 963 A.2d 724, 737 (Del. 2008).

4
Ex Parte Order
On February 22, 2024, the Court signed an Ex Parte Order awarding temporary
emergency custody to DSCYF. When the children first came into care, they were placed
together in the foster home of Ms. M-----.
Preliminary Protective Hearing
On February 28, 2024, the Court conducted a virtual hearing. Mother and Father
were present for the hearing. The Court noted that paternity had not been established,
although Father did not dispute paternity. The Court found probable cause to believe
that the children were neglected as defined by 10 Del. C. § 901(18) because Mother
and Father did not follow up on medical appointments and schedule dental
appointments for all four children, nor did they ensure that C----- and A------ attended
school. Specifically, A------ had a very large burn on his chest, which he sustained while
he (age five) and/or C----- (age 8) were cooking noodles unsupervised. J------ was not
up to date on immunizations and did not attend multiple well-baby check-ups.
Additionally, Ms. H---- testified and noted that all four children were past-due for dental
appointments. The Court found that it was in the children’s best interests for custody to
remain with DSCYF. The Court found that DSCYF exercised due diligence to identify
and provide notice of the children’s placement to all grandparents and adult relatives.
Lastly, the Court ordered that Father, and the children submit to genetic testing to
confirm paternity of the children.
Adjudicatory Hearing
On April 9, 2024, the Court held an Adjudicatory Hearing. Mother and Father
attended the hearing. Father’s paternity was established as to all four children based on

5
the genetic testing results. By order dated April 18, 2024, the Court found that the
children were dependent, neglected, or abused in Mother and Father’s care as defined
by 10 Del. C. § 901(1), (8), and (18), and accepted Father’s stipulation to dependency
based on inadequate housing. The Court further found that continuing the children’s
residence in the home and custody of their parents was contrary to their welfare, and
that it was in their best interest to remain in the custody of DSCYF. The Court found that
DSCYF made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the children
from their home, and that DSCYF had placed the children in an appropriate home under
the care of a foster parent. Lastly, the Court determined that DSCYF exercised due
diligence to identify and provide notice of the children’s placement in foster care to all
adult grandparents and other adult relatives of the children, including any other adult
relatives suggested by the parents. The Court ordered DSCYF to continue to explore
relative placement with Maternal Aunt, Paternal Grandmother, and Maternal
Grandmother.
Dispositional Hearing
On May 7, 2024, the Court conducted a Dispositional Hearing, for which Mother
and Father appeared. Ms. Witherell presented Mother’s unsigned case plan to the
Court. Mother acknowledged that she understood the elements and obligations of the
case plan. Mother’s case plan included the following six elements: (1) Parenting
Behaviors and Routines – including being referred by DSCYF to a family interventionist,
and Nurturing Parenting Program where she was required to attend six to eight classes,
and attend the children’s school, medical, and therapeutic appointments as permitted;
(2) Legal System – including attending all scheduled court dates and hearings, and not

6
engaging in any criminal activity or obtaining any new criminal charges that would
prevent her from caring for her children; (3) Substance Use – including being referred to
a provider for substance abuse evaluation and urine drug screenings, compliance with
all elements of treatment as recommended by the provider, and authorizing the provider
to communicate with DSCYF regarding her progress; (4) Mental Health Coping Skills –
including being referred to Dr. B---------- for a mental health evaluation, completing the
evaluation, following any recommended treatments, and authorizing the provider to
communicate with DSCYF regarding her progress; (5) Basic Needs and Financial
Resources – including obtaining and maintaining employment or some significant
source of income sufficient to meet the needs of herself and the children, and working
with a family interventionist to apply for any available government benefits; and (6)
Children’s Educational and Health Needs – including cooperating with DSCYF
regarding services that the children may need, such as medical, dental, and educational
appointments, in which Mother was encouraged to participate.
Mother stated that she would sign the case plan. However, regarding the
parenting element, she stated that she previously completed parenting classes and had
certificates of completion. Ms. Witherell argued that regardless of these parenting
courses, DSCYF would still ask Mother to participate in the classes assigned by
DSCYF. George Tsakataras (“Mr. Tsakataras”), Mother’s attorney at the time,
requested two weeks to produce the certificates before entering a formal objection to
the entry of Mother’s case plan. The Court afforded Mr. Tsakataras two weeks from the
date of the hearing to enter a formal objection. As of the close of the business day on
May 21, 2024, the Court had not received any formal objection from Mr. Tsakataras,

7
and as such Mother’s case plan was admitted into evidence, without objection, and
incorporated by reference in the Court’s Dispositional Order dated May 23, 2024.
Ms. Witherell presented Father’s unsigned case plan to the Court. Father
acknowledged that he understood the elements and obligations of the case plan.
Father’s case plan addressed the following six elements: (1) Parenting Behaviors and
Routines – including being referred by DSCYF to a family interventionist, and
participating in the Delaware Fatherhood and Family Coalition program known as “24/7
Dad”; (2) Legal System - including attending all scheduled court dates and hearings,
and not engaging in any criminal activity or obtaining any new criminal charges that
would prevent him from caring for his children; (3) Substance Use - including being
referred to a provider for substance abuse evaluation and urine drug screenings,
compliance with all elements of treatment as recommended by the provider, and
authorizing the provider to communicate with DSCYF regarding his progress; (4) Mental
Health Coping Skills - including being referred to Dr. B---------- for a mental health
evaluation, completing the evaluation, following any recommended treatments, and
authorizing the provider to communicate with DSCYF regarding his progress; (5)
Physical Characteristics of the Household - including obtaining and maintaining
appropriate housing, sufficient to pass a home assessment, and providing DSCYF with
a copy of the lease or rental agreement for said housing; and (6) Children’s Educational
and Health Needs - including cooperating with DSCYF regarding services the children
may need, such as medical, dental, and educational appointments, in which Father was
encouraged to participate. Ms. H---- created child plans for each of the children, which

8
outlined the services that DSCYF would provide for their success.3 These services
pertained to the children’s educational, physical, mental, and dental health needs. C-----
’s case plan included the following element: attend therapeutic services consistently to
address his traumatic experiences. A------’s case plan included the following three
elements: (1) have routine childcare and as-needed appointments to address his
physical health; (2) have a psychoeducational evaluation completed through the school
district to determine his educational and developmental needs; and (3) attend
therapeutic services consistently to process his traumatic experiences. J---’s case plan
included the following two elements: (1) have routine well-childcare and as-needed
appointments to address his oral and physical health; and (2) have a developmental
evaluation completed to determine his developmental needs. J------’s case plan included
the following two elements: (1) have a routine well-childcare and as-needed
appointments to address his physical health; and (2) have a developmental evaluation
completed to determine his developmental needs. Regarding the children’s placements,
C----- and A------ remained with Ms. M-----. On March 18, 2024, J--- and J------ were
relocated to the home of C-------- B--- (“Ms. B---”). As of May 1, 2024, J------ was moved
from Ms. B---’s home to a foster home located in Smyrna, Delaware, with P------- T-----
(“Ms. T-----”).
By Order dated May 23, 2024, the Court found by a preponderance of the
evidence that C-----, A------, J---, and J------ continued to be dependent children as to
both Mother and Father, and it was in their best interests for custody to remain with
3 The combined child case plans for C-----, A------, J---, and J------ were admitted into evidence, without
objection, as DFS Exhibit 2 at the Dispositional Hearing. The case plans were incorporated by reference
in the Dispositional order.

9
DSCYF. The Court also found that DSCYF exerted reasonable efforts to achieve the
permanency goal, which was reunification. The Court determined that DSCYF made
reasonable efforts to case plan with Mother and Father.
Review Hearing
On August 27, 2024, the Court conducted a Review Hearing. Mother was present
for the hearing, but Father failed to appear. Mother was required to complete a
parenting course with Children and Families First (“CFF”) but failed to engage in the
course and instead presented a certificate of completion for a parenting course from
2014. Ms. H---- did not believe that Mother had implemented any of the skills she
learned throughout the course. Ms. H---- submitted another referral to a new parenting
program, which was “therapeutic based,” tailored to an individual participant’s needs,
and could be completed in eight weeks. Ms. H---- emphasized that mere completion of
the program was insufficient, and Mother must implement the skills that she learns.
Mother did not attend the children’s doctor or dental appointments. However, she did
attend A------’s initial appointment for therapeutic services and his Individualized
Education Plan (“IEP”) meeting. Mother’s greatest challenge was responding to
providers in a timely manner. The Court made clear that Mother’s previous completion
of a parenting course ten years ago did not relieve Mother of her obligation to complete
a parenting course pursuant to case plan. Mother’s visitation with the children was
generally consistent. Sometimes, Mother would become frustrated and end the visit
early.
The criminal investigation into A------’s burn was still ongoing at the time of the
review hearing, though Mother stated that she settled all outstanding charges, and

10
averred that any criminal matter pending against her was dismissed. Mother was
receiving mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment through Henrietta
Johnson Medical Center (“Henrietta Johnson”), and signed all necessary consents to
allow access to information about her progress. Mother remained unemployed. Mother
indicated to Ms. H---- that she had an upcoming appointment with Social Security on
September 4, 2024, to obtain benefits based on her bipolar disorder and depression
diagnoses. Mother had no other source of income. Mother maintained housing through
a Wilmington Housing Authority voucher. Ms. H---- expressed concern about Mother’s
housing stability, as Mother admitted that her father (“Maternal Grandfather”) had
substance use issues and was residing in her home. Ms. H---- confirmed that if he
continued residing in Mother’s home, it would impede Mother’s ability to reunify with the
children. Further, Maternal Grandfather was an unauthorized occupant, which could
jeopardize Mother’s housing pursuant to the terms of the Wilmington Housing
Authority’s housing plan. Mother asked Maternal Grandfather to leave her home by
September 15, 2024. Mother confirmed that she and Father were no longer an intact
couple, and Father moved out of her home.
Father was referred for parenting courses, but he did not engage in any course.
Father was inconsistent with his visits with the children, as he missed three out of the
four July visits and missed a visit during the third week of August. Father was referred
for a substance use evaluation, but did not follow through, and therefore was ordered to
follow up and respond to the provider. While there were no known or identified mental
health issues for Father at the time of the Review Hearing, Father had not been referred
by DSCYF to Dr. B---------- for a mental health evaluation to confirm whether Father had

11
mental health issues. Ms. H---- testified that she initiated the referral process, but
because it had not been finalized, no official referral for a mental health evaluation had
been submitted as to Father. Ms. H---- expected to submit the referral to Dr. B----------.
Father maintained employment at ---- making $17.00 per hour. Father had not
participated in the children’s medical or dental appointments, despite confirming his
attendance in advance. Father signed the consent form for A------’s IEP evaluation, but
he did not attend the IEP meeting. Lastly, Father was responsive to signing consents for
the children to receive services.
Regarding C-----’s mental health, he was attending therapeutic services through
Delaware Guidance Services (“Delaware Guidance”) in Dover and participated in
weekly counseling. He was up to date on all medical appointments. Regarding his
dental health, C----- had twelve cavities that were being addressed. C----- was in second
grade at ---------- ------- (“----------”). He was referred to the ----- ---- -- ---- program, which
provided him with academic oversight. C----- continued to reside with Ms. M-----.
Regarding A------’s dental health, he had five cavities that were recommended for
fillings, four sealants, and two extractions. He was referred to Smyrna Pediatric
Dentistry for a “baby root canal.” He was also referred to an ophthalmologist regarding
eye and vision concerns. A------ attended ---------- and was in the first grade. He was
evaluated for an IEP, which was implemented at the beginning of the academic year. A-
----- was classified as having developmental delays, and he was to begin receiving
speech services. Regarding A------’s mental health, he was attending weekly therapeutic
counseling with Delaware Guidance. A------ continued to reside with Ms. M-----.

12
J--- was healthy and up to date medically. However, there were concerns about
his oral health, and he was referred to the surgery center for tooth extractions.
Regarding J---’s child development, he was referred to the Center for Child
Development for therapeutic services. He met with a therapist, K------- B------ (“Ms. B-----
-”), on a biweekly basis to address his behavioral and emotional needs. J--- was not
currently in school, but he was in the process of receiving a developmental evaluation
for preschool in the --------- ------ --------. J--- remained in the foster home of Ms. B---.
J------ was up to date medically and needed a follow up dental appointment to be
scheduled. Regarding his child development, he was evaluated for autism, and it was
determined that he did not have autism. However, he did have developmental delays.
To address the developmental delays, he was referred to the ----------- program for a
speech evaluation. J------ made notable progress at daycare since his start in May 2024.
He continued to reside with Ms. T----- and M--- C--- (“Mr. C---”).
Because both Mother and Father needed to resolve elements of their respective
case plans, by Order dated August 30, 2024, the Court found by a preponderance of the
evidence that C-----, A------, J---, and J------ continued to be dependent children as to
both parents, and that it was in their best interest to remain in the custody of DSCYF.
The Court also found that DSCYF had exerted reasonable efforts to achieve the
permanency goal, which was reunification. The Court determined that the services
provided in the case plans constituted reasonable efforts toward reunification.
Second Review Hearing
On November 19, 2024, the Court held a Second Review Hearing where Mother
and Father were present. Mother completed an intake for a parenting course on

13
November 8, 2024. Mother was assigned D--- M---- (“Ms. M----”) as her family
interventionist. Mother initially declined family intervention services, but Mother was
interested in working with Ms. M---- after it was discussed that Ms. M---- could help
coordinate additional visitation. Mother and Father had weekly supervised visits with the
children. Mother was generally consistent attending the visits, though she was
sometimes late or cancelled. Since September, Mother and Father were offered twelve
one-hour visits, and they attended seven of them. Regarding the legal element of
Mother’s case plan, Ms. H---- testified that to her knowledge, the criminal investigation
with Wilmington Police Department in relation to the burn on A------’s chest was still
ongoing. However, the child attorney stated that the State declined to prosecute the
matter. Mother continued to receive mental health counseling and substance abuse
treatment through Henrietta Johnson. Mother was prescribed Suboxone, Wellbutrin,
Buspirone Hydrochloride, and Seroquel. Mother had biweekly appointments with Dr. O--
--. DSCYF requested information about Mother’s engagement with her counseling, but
Henrietta Johnson was unresponsive.
Mother remained unemployed and was waiting for the results of her
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) disability income application with the Social
Security Administration, while seeking a temporary job. Mother resided in a four-
bedroom home, which DSCYF deemed appropriate for children. Mother continued to
maintain her housing through a Wilmington Housing Authority voucher, which covered
all her housing and utility expenses. Ms. H---- was unaware whether there were
unauthorized occupants in Mother’s home, including Maternal Grandfather, which would
violate Mother’s lease agreement with the Wilmington Housing Authority, thereby

14
jeopardizing her housing. Mother was consistently attending the children’s virtual
appointments. She attended an intake appointment for school-based therapeutic
services for C----- and A------. However, Mother failed to participate in J------’s Individual
Services Plan (“ISP”) meeting. On October 9, 2024, Mother participated in J---’s initial
eligibility determination meeting for school-based services through the school district.
Mother and Father did not engage with family or individual sessions with A------’s and C-
----’s therapist.
Father completed an intake to enroll in parenting classes on November 8, 2024.
Father, like Mother, was generally consistent attending the visits. Ms. H---- raised
concern about Father’s visit on November 6, 2024, because there was a strong odor of
marijuana in the hallways and in the room where the family engaged in visitation. Ms. H-
--- testified that, to her knowledge, the criminal investigation with Wilmington Police
Department in relation to the burn on A------’s chest was still ongoing. However, the
child attorney stated that the State declined to prosecute the matter. Ms. H---- testified
that as of August 16, 2024, Father had pending charges for offensive touching
regarding Mother, and a no unlawful contact order was implemented. Regarding
Father’s substance use, Father declined the substance abuse evaluation with Holistic
Evaluations. Another referral for Father was made, but he did not respond to the
corresponding intake. On October 8, 2024, a referral was submitted for Essentials
Recovery. Father declined this referral because he did not have health insurance and
the evaluation cost $200. On October 10, 2024, Father was referred to the Bridge Clinic
as they accepted referrals regardless of insurance status. Father had not completed the
substance abuse evaluation. Although no mental health issues had been identified for

15
Father, he completed the mental health evaluation with Dr. B---------- on October 14,
2024, and the results were pending.
Father had not provided Ms. H---- with any pay stubs since August 2024, despite
her requesting them. Regarding Father’s housing, he was believed to be living with
Mother, although he was not on her lease. Father, like Mother, had been attending the
children’s virtual appointments. Father attended the intake appointment for school-
based therapeutic services for C----- and A------, and J------’s ISP meeting. Father
provided the necessary consent to move forward with the early intervention services.
On October 9, 2024, Father participated in J---’s initial eligibility determination meeting
for school-based services through the district.
Regarding C-----’s mental health, C----- received services at Delaware Guidance.
He also started receiving school-based therapeutic services with K---- L------ (“Ms. L------
”), who specialized in trauma-informed therapy. C----- participated in 37 sessions with
Ms. L------. C----- was to begin small group sessions with his peers to learn more
socially acceptable behaviors. He was in the second grade at ---------- and received
biweekly tutoring services from ----- ---- -- ----. C----- was up to date on medical
appointments, and there were no concerns about his vision. Regarding his dental
health, he had thirteen cavities. C----- continued to reside with Ms. M-----, where he was
adjusting.
Regarding A------’s physical health, he was up to date medically. A------ had an
eye appointment at Nemours on October 1, 2024, and he was given a prescription for
eyeglasses. A------ did not have glasses yet because of insurance issues. A------’s last
dental appointment revealed that he needed three teeth removed, had eight cavities,

16
and an abscess. A------ had a consultation for surgery on October 25, 2024, and an
appointment for fillings on November 11, 2024. A------ was on a waiting list for dental
surgery. Regarding A------’s child development, he attended ---------- and was in the first
grade. He regularly attended school and only had three unexcused absences. There
were no behavioral concerns at school regarding A------, and his participation at school
had increased. A------ had an IEP for developmental delays and expressive language
disorder. Additionally, he had a low IQ. A------ received speech services and small group
interventions. A------ also received biweekly tutoring services from ----- ---- -- ----. He
was meeting proficiency in addition and subtraction. In social studies and English, he
was progressing towards proficiency. Regarding A------’s mental health, he was
receiving services at Delaware Guidance. He also started receiving school-based
therapeutic services with Ms. L------. These services included weekly individual sessions
with Ms. L------ and group sessions with his peers. On October 10, 2024, A------ had an
appointment with the psychology department at Nemours. A------ was diagnosed with
adjustment disorder with mixed emotion and conduct. A------ had a follow up psychology
appointment on December 5, 2024. A------ remained in the home of Ms. M----- with C----
- and was still adjusting to the home.
Regarding J---’s physical health, he was healthy and up to date medically. J---
had oral surgery in September and had caps placed on his teeth. His next dental
appointment was a routine cleaning in December. There were no concerns about his
vision. Regarding J---’s child development, he was referred to the Center for Child
Development for therapeutic services. He met with a therapist, Ms. B------, on a
biweekly basis to address his behavioral and emotional needs. J--- was diagnosed with

17
post-traumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Ms. B------
indicated that J--- was delayed in his social and emotional skills. Ms. B------ worked with
J--- on recognizing emotions and facial expressions. Additionally, Ms. B------ worked
with J--- on food insecurity as there were reports that J--- would eat out of the trash, was
very food driven, and wanted to eat, even when he was full. Lastly, Ms. B------ was
working with J--- on how to respond when someone got hurt. J--- started full day pre-K
and struggled with inappropriate urination, but this had improved. He remained in the
foster home of Ms. B--- and was doing well there.
Regarding J------’s physical health, he was up to date on medical and dental
appointments. He had an appointment on October 1, 2024, that noted dental decay in
multiple areas and the need for x-rays. On November 1, 2024, he was scheduled for
sedation to address these issues. There were no known concerns about his vision.
Regarding J------’s child development, he attended daycare and preschool. He received
early childhood services at the daycare and took the bus to school for speech services.
J------ had an IEP for developmental delays and expressive language disorder. J------
was thriving in daycare and liked to sing, count, and recognize colors and shapes. J------
remained in the care of Ms. T----- and Mr. C---, and he was thriving in his placement.
Due to multiple elements on Mother’s and Father’s respective case plans being
incomplete, by Order dated December 2, 2024, the Court found that C-----, A------, J---,
and J------ remained dependent children by a preponderance of the evidence as to both
Mother and Father, and that it was in their best interests to remain in the custody of
DSCYF. The Court found that DSCYF was making reasonable efforts towards the

18
permanency plan in effect, which was reunification. The Court also found that the
services provided in the case plans constituted reasonable efforts towards reunification.
On January 3, 2025, Mr. Tsakataras withdrew his appearance as court-appointed
counsel for Mother, and Ms. Maguire entered her appearance on behalf of Mother.
Third Review Hearing
On February 11, 2025, the Court conducted a Third Review Hearing, and both
parents were present. Mother and Father made progress on their case plans, but
certain elements were still incomplete. Regarding the parenting element of Mother’s
case plan, she had two sessions of parenting courses remaining. However, Mother was
not engaging with the family interventionist. It was confirmed that the State declined to
prosecute the matter regarding the burn on A------’s chest, so the legal system element
of Mother’s case plan was satisfied. Mother continued to receive mental health and
substance abuse treatment at Henrietta Johnson. Between August and November
2024, Mother had several positive drug test results for amphetamines and
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“MDMA”).4 DSCYF would require a minimum of six
consecutive months of negative urine screens before considering unsupervised
visitation or reunification. Mother completed a mental health evaluation with Dr. B---------
-. Based on Dr. B----------’s report, Mother would need to participate in a detox or
inpatient program for substance abuse. Mother remained unemployed. She was still
waiting on the results of her SSI claim and looking for a temporary job. She continued to
reside in a four-bedroom home, which she maintained through a Wilmington Housing
4 MDMA is a Schedule I substance. Schedule I substances “…are defined as substances with no
currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Nat’l Inst. on Drug Abuse, MDMA
(Ecstasy) Abuse at 7 (Sept. 2017), https://nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/1763-mdma-ecstasy-abuse.pdf.

19
Authority voucher. Ms. H---- testified that the home would not be appropriate for children
if Maternal Grandfather was residing there. Ms. H---- reported that for the most part,
both parents were attending the children’s virtual school appointments. Mother was
providing the necessary medical consents for the children. She had access to the
Nemours application to see when the children’s medical appointments were scheduled,
and Pressley Ridge usually alerted Mother to the appointments. However, she only
attended one out of six appointments that were scheduled between December 11,
2024, and February 5, 2025; two of the six appointments were surgical appointments,
and Mother attended neither surgery DSCYF expected parents to participate in medical
appointments so that they were aware of the children’s needs. Mother’s biggest barriers
to reunification were substance abuse, mental health, parenting behaviors and routines,
and employment.
DSCYF required Father to complete a parenting course, and he had two
sessions remaining. Father’s visitation was consistent at that time. Regarding the legal
system element of Father’s case plan, it was confirmed that the State declined to
prosecute the matter regarding the burn on A------’s chest. However, Father’s charges
for offensive touching regarding Mother remained pending, and the criminal no unlawful
contact order remained in place. Additionally, Father had an active warrant for failure to
pay traffic-related fines in the Justice of the Peace Court. Father completed a substance
abuse evaluation from Brandywine Counseling (“Brandywine”), but DSCYF did not yet
have access to the results because Brandywine was unresponsive. Father completed a
mental health evaluation on October 14, 2024, with Dr. B----------. DSCYF received the
results, but Dr. B---------- was unable to testify at this review hearing. Father was

20
employed as a caregiver, but he did not provide any paystubs to Ms. H---- confirming
his employment. Ms. H---- believed that Father was living with Mother. Lastly, for the
most part, Father, like Mother, had been attending the children’s virtual appointments.
Father’s biggest barriers to reunification were parenting behaviors and routines, the
legal system, substance abuse, basic needs, and housing.
Regarding C-----’s mental health, he continued to receive school-based
therapeutic services with Ms. L------. His coping skills were improving. He was up to
date medically and dentally. There were no concerns about his vision. C----- was in
second grade at ----------, and he continued to reside with Ms. M-----. He was making
positive adjustments in the home.
Regarding A------’s physical health, he was up to date medically. He was given a
prescription for glasses, which were ordered, and the insurance issues were resolved.
A------ was up to date on his dental appointments. He had dental surgery, and all
outstanding dental issues were resolved. Regarding A------’s child development, he
continued to attend ---------- and was in the first grade. A------ had an IEP for
developmental delays and expressive language disorder. Regarding A------’s mental
health, he was receiving school-based therapeutic services with Ms. L------. A------ still
lived in the home of Ms. M----- with C-----, and he was still adjusting to the home.
Regarding J---’s well-being, he was struggling with physical aggression,
overturning furniture, head banging, eating food out of the trash, and had difficulty
sleeping. On January 15, 2025, J--- saw a pediatrician to address these concerns. The
pediatrician recommended a low dose of sleeping medication, which was unsuccessful.
The pediatrician referred J--- to the psychiatric department for evaluation; he was also

21
referred to ophthalmology. J--- had a psychiatric appointment scheduled for February
25, 2025. There were no concerns regarding J---’s dental health. There were concerns
about J---’s tight hips that caused him to struggle to go up and down stairs. J--- was
receiving mental health services at the Center for Child Development. J--- attended
weekly therapy sessions with Ms. B------. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress
disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Ms. B------ was to begin family
sessions with the parents, so they would know how to support J---. J--- would also begin
receiving in-home therapy services with Ignacio Bravo for parent child interaction
therapy (“PCIT”). J--- attended pre-K at the --------- ----- --------- ------ and had an IEP for
developmental delays and speech concerns. J--- was residing in the foster home of Ms.
B--- but because of the enumerated challenges, Ms. B--- put in a notice to have J---
removed from the home.
Regarding J------’s physical health, he was up to date on medical and dental
appointments. His dental surgery on February 5, 2025 went well. There were no
concerns about his vision. Regarding J------’s child development, he attended daycare
and preschool. He received early childhood services at the daycare and took the bus to
school for speech services. Further, J------ had an ISP for developmental delays and
expressive language disorder. J------ was not receiving mental health services. J------
remained in the care of Ms. T----- and Mr. C---, and he was doing well there.
On January 7, 2025, DSCYF filed a Motion to Change the Permanency Plan to
Termination of Parental Rights/Adoption. Both Mother and Father filed responses
objecting to the change and requested that if the Court granted the Motion, the Court
also grant a concurrent goal of reunification. The Court deferred its ruling on the motion

22
until the Permanency Hearing. By Order dated February 25, 2025, the Court found by a
preponderance of the evidence that C-----, A------, J---, and J------ continued to be
dependent children as to both Mother and Father, and that it was in their best interests
for custody to remain with DSCYF. The Court also found that DSCYF exerted
reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency goal, which was reunification. The Court
found that the services provided in the case plans constituted reasonable efforts toward
reunification.
Permanency Hearing
On April 8, 2025, the Court held a Permanency Hearing, and both parents
attended. Unchanged since the Court’s February 11, 2025, hearing, Mother continued
to have two sessions of parenting classes remaining for completion. Mother was
assigned T----- V--- (“Ms. V---”) as her family interventionist. However, Mother did not
engage with Ms. V--- in a one-on-one setting. Ms. V--- testified that communication with
Mother was inconsistent, but Ms. V--- contacted Mother at least once a week. Mother
consistently attended the weekly supervised visits with the children and was engaged
with them during the visits. Mother, as well as Father, missed team meetings. To satisfy
the parenting behaviors and routines element of Mother’s case plan, Mother needed to
complete her parenting course, demonstrate an understanding of the lessons learned in
the course, and work with the family interventionist. The legal system element of
Mother’s case plan was satisfied.
Mother continued to receive substance abuse treatment through Henrietta
Johnson. Mother again tested positive for MDMA on January 18, 2025. Mother’s most
recent disclosure of MDMA use to Henrietta Johnson was on February 7, 2025. Mother

23
completed a mental health evaluation with Dr. B----------. Based on her evaluation of
Mother, Dr. B---------- opined that the treatment program at Henrietta Johnson was
insufficient because it lacked a mental health or therapy component. Dr. B----------
stated that Mother’s ongoing substance use could affect her psychological stability, but
Mother’s psychological issues could not be treated while substance abuse was active.
Dr. B---------- testified that substance use affects the ability to diagnose mental health
disorders, and that Mother would need six weeks of clean urine screens before a
complete mental health diagnosis could be made. Dr. B---------- had concerns about
Mother’s ability to raise four young children while abusing substances, because it could
affect her ability to stay alert, pay attention, and respond appropriately. Dr. B----------
stated that Mother’s substance abuse could also impact her impulse and anger control.
Dr. B---------- opined that Mother had no insight into the impact her substance use may
have on the children. Dr. B---------- testified that Mother needed to participate in a detox
or inpatient program for her substance abuse issues and recommended that Mother
participate in mental health counseling as part of an intensive substance abuse
program. Dr. B---------- opined that Mother should get a psychiatric evaluation after she
treated her substance abuse. Ms. V--- gave Mother information on Banyan Treatment
Center (“Banyan”), where DSCYF has had success sending parents in the past. This
program was 28 days with detox, group therapy, and individual therapy. Mother was
prescribed Wellbutrin, Buspirone Hydrochloride, and Seroquel.
Mother remained unemployed. She had a job interview on March 3, 2025, but
was never contacted about the position. Mother had not provided DSCYF any
documentation of an income or a plan showing how she could support the children.

24
Mother continued to reside in a four-bedroom home, maintaining it through the housing
voucher for no cost. Regarding the children’s educational and health needs element of
Mother’s case plan, Mother missed J------’s last IEP meeting despite the school sending
her reminders and requesting her availability. Overall, Mother had missed some
appointments for the children. Ms. H---- was not sure how many appointments Mother
missed but remembered that Mother did not participate in the teleconference with J------
’s speech therapist. Ms. M------- reported that Mother attended A------’s IEP meeting.
DSCYF required Father to complete a parenting course, and he continued to
have two sessions remaining. Father was assigned Ms. V--- as his family interventionist.
Father did not meet with Ms. V--- one-on-one. Father and Mother continued to have
weekly supervised visitations with the children. Father, as well as Mother, missed team
meetings scheduled for February 12, 2025, and March 19, 2025. Father’s pending
charges for offensive touching were resolved. Father completed a substance abuse
evaluation at Brandywine Counseling (“Brandywine”) in November 2024 and February
28, 2025. However, the results of the evaluation were not obtained as of the date of the
Permanency Hearing. No mental health issues had been identified as to Father, and Dr.
B---------- opined that Father did not need a referral for a psychiatric evaluation. Based
on Dr. B----------’s psychological evaluation she completed for Father on October 14,
2024, Dr. B---------- diagnosed Father with cannabis use disorder, and recommended
substance abuse treatment for Father to explore why he used marijuana daily. Dr. B-----
----- expressed concerns about Father exposing the children to substance abuse and
his ability to stay focused and have enough energy to care for the children. Based on a
visitation on December 6, 2024, Dr. B---------- observed that Father was very relaxed

25
and passive, mostly allowing Mother to care for the children and only stepping in when
needed. Dr. B---------- reported that when conflict arose between Mother and Father,
Father tended to leave. Dr. B---------- raised concerns about Father leaving the children
with Mother during conflict when Mother seemed psychologically unstable. Dr. B----------
testified that Father lacked insight into his parenting challenges because he believed he
was present and willing to step in for the children; however, Dr. B---------- opined that in
reality Father has had extended absences from the children and historically relied on
Mother to care for the children.
Father remained employed at ----------- as a caregiver and provided DSCYF with
paystubs as recent as April 2, 2025. Regarding housing, Father was believed to be
living with Mother. Father needed to obtain his own housing to satisfy this element of his
case plan. Like Mother, Father missed some medical and educational appointments for
the children. Father was more responsive than Mother, but he did not always follow
through. Housing and parenting behaviors were the most important outstanding
elements in Father’s case plan.
Regarding C-----’s mental health, he continued to attend school-based
therapeutic services with Ms. L------. His coping skills were improving. Furthermore, C---
-- completed an intake at Delaware Guidance to receive additional therapy outside of
school. C----- was also to be referred for medication management due to displaying
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) behavior. He was up to date on all
medical and dental appointments. C----- continued to attend ---------- and was in the
second grade. C----- continued to reside with Ms. M-----. Ms. M----- testified that after
visitation with Mother and Father, C----- would tell her that Mother told the children that

26
they are coming home soon. Further, on one occasion, C----- shared with Ms. M----- that
he was told that Father got him a Play Station 5 (“PS5”), but that he could not play with
it until he was home.
Regarding A------’s physical health, he was up to date on all medical and dental
appointments. He continued to attend ---------- and was in the first grade. A------ had an
IEP for developmental delays and expressive language disorder. Regarding A------’s
mental health, he was receiving school-based therapeutic services with Ms. L------. A----
-- completed an intake at Delaware Guidance to receive additional therapy outside of
school. He was also being referred for medication management due to displaying ADHD
behavior. A------ was still living in the home of Ms. M-----.
Regarding J---’s physical health, he was up to date on medical and dental
appointments. He was referred to physical therapy due to concerns about tightness in
his legs, but additional treatment was not necessary. J--- was receiving mental health
services at the Center for Child Development. J--- attended weekly therapy sessions
with Ms. B------. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and ADHD. Ms.
B------ testified that J---’s attitude towards Mother and Father had not changed. J---
yelled when the Mother and Father figures were introduced in play therapy, or he
showed ambivalence towards these figures. Ms. B------ testified that it was important for
J--- to not display dysregulation before placing him with his parents, to avoid
retraumatizing him. Ms. B------ opined that it would be helpful for the parents to
participate in therapy with J--- before reunification, but J--- was not yet ready for this
step. Ms. B------ further testified that J--- had made progress during therapy, such as
showing empathetic responses when people got hurt. His language and comprehension

27
had also improved. J---’s focus on food had decreased, allowing him to ignore food and
water while he played. J---’s first resource parent reported to Ms. B------ that he stopped
eating food out of the garbage. His current resource parent reported to Ms. B------ that
he was sleeping through the night and his behaviors at home were improving. Ms. B-----
- was unable to continue to provide services to J--- because of his move to the M-----
house in Kent County. J--- was moved into the home of Ms. M----- on March 3, 2025,
and he was adjusting to the home. There was only positive or neutral feedback about J-
--’s placement with Ms. M-----.
Regarding J------’s physical health, he was up to date on medical and dental
appointments. Regarding J------’s child development, he attended daycare and
preschool. J------ received early childhood services at the daycare and took the bus to
school for speech services. J------ had an ISP for developmental delays and expressive
language disorder. He had completed an intake at Delaware Guidance to receive
therapy. J------ was still in the care of Ms. T----- and Mr. C---.
By Order dated April 16, 2025, the Court granted DSCYF’s Motion to Change
Permanency Plan to Termination of Parental Rights/Adoption, and Mother’s and
Father’s request for a concurrent goal of reunification. The Court recognized that the
children had been in DSCYF custody since February 22, 2024, and stressed the
importance of permanency for the children. The Court acknowledged that the parents
continued to make progress on their case plans. Father was especially close to
completing his case plan. While Mother had two months to enroll in a detox substance
abuse program, she failed to do so. The Court stressed the importance of Mother
following through on this element of her case plan. Based upon the evidence and

28
testimony presented, the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that C-----, A-
-----, J---, and J------ continued to be dependent children as to both Mother and Father,
and that it was in their best interests for custody to remain with DSCYF. The Court also
found that DSCYF exerted reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency goal, which
was reunification, and that the services provided in the case plans constituted
reasonable efforts toward reunification.
Post-Permanency Review Hearing
On July 17, 2025, the Court held a Post-Permanency Review Hearing, and both
parents attended. Mother completed the parenting course that was required by DSCYF.
Mother contacted a new family interventionist. Mother missed two visits with the children
in April because she was at Banyan for substance abuse treatment and missed three of
four scheduled visits in May. Mother denied missing visitation in May. Mother also
missed three of four scheduled visits in June and one visit in July. Mother explained that
she missed visitation because of scheduling conflicts with her substance abuse
treatment program. Mother emailed Ms. H---- asking to change the visitation time and
received a response a week prior to the hearing. Ms. S----- testified that they were able
to make a plan that accommodated both parents’ schedules. Mother organized and
planned activities for the children, brought snacks to the visitation, and showed pictures
of family members to the children. The visits were long enough for the children to have
one-on-one time with the parents and were mostly happy with some sibling bickering.
The legal element of Mother’s case plan remained satisfied.
Mother had a history of substance abuse. Mother reported that in the past, she
had used suboxone and Percocet but recently had issues using MDMA. Beginning in

29
April 2025, Mother began receiving outpatient substance abuse treatment at Essentials,
Monday through Friday. She received group and individual therapy, drug screenings,
and medication. Prior to receiving treatment at Essentials, Mother was at Banyan for
two weeks, but did not complete the outpatient program there, explaining that she could
not do therapy or visit with her children on Zoom while she was at Banyan. Mother
testified that she had missed two meetings with Essentials near the time of the hearing,
due to cramps and accidently taking her sleeping medication. Based on Mr. R--------’s
report, Mother missed four meetings at Essentials and tested positive for alcohol.
Mother was receiving medication to address her mental health issues at Essentials.
Mother remained unemployed. She planned on finding employment after she
finished the program at Essentials. Her last job was at ---------- two years ago. Mother
resided in a four-bedroom, two-bathroom home with her 22-year-old son. Mother and
seven of her children, including the four in these proceedings, were on the lease. She
maintained her housing through a Wilmington Housing Authority voucher, which
continued to cover her housing and utility expenses. Mother reported that she does not
attend the children’s doctors’ appointments because she does not get notified of the
dates. In April 2025, Mother attended A------’s IEP meeting at school.
Father completed the parenting course. Father missed two visits in April. Father
attended a visitation on May 7, 2025, with his mother (“Paternal Grandmother”), but
Paternal Grandmother did not stay the entire time. Father also attended visitation on
May 14, 2025. Father testified that he did not attend visitation from May 21, 2025,
through July 2, 2025, because of scheduling conflicts with his new job. Ms. S-----
reported that Father sometimes FaceTimed Paternal Grandmother during visits. Ms. S--

30
--- stated that J--- particularly enjoyed speaking to Paternal Grandmother. There were
no pending legal charges as to Father at this time. Father completed a substance abuse
evaluation at Brandywine in November 2024 and February 28, 2025. The mental health
element of Father’s case plan was satisfied.
Father remained employed at ----------- as a caregiver, earning $15/hour and
working 50 hours per week. Father obtained a second job as a truck driver. Father did
not have savings because he purchased a car. Father had two other minor children that
lived with their mother and his wages were garnished for child support. Regarding
housing, Father resided with the individual to whom he provided care and does not pay
rent. Father completed a housing application on March 3, 2025, and was on the waiting
list. Furthermore, Father testified that he understood that if Mother lived with him, she
needed to complete her case plan. Regarding the children’s educational and health
needs element of Father’s case plan, Father received emails regarding the children’s
appointments, but did not know about their health. Father explained that when DSCYF
calls, he listens, but it is difficult for him to remember the information; he further
indicated that he knows the children are in therapy, but did not know about their issues.
Regarding C-----’s mental health, he continued to attend school-based
therapeutic services with Ms. L------. C----- received therapy outside of school at
Delaware Guidance with G--- G----. C----- received medication to manage his ADHD.
Moreover, C----- was up to date on medical and dental appointments. He completed the
second grade at ---------- and would start third grade in the fall. He was meeting
proficiency or making progress towards proficiency in all subjects. C----- continued to
reside with Ms. M----- and was doing well in this placement. Ms. M----- testified that

31
following a recent visit with Mother and Father, C----- stated that he was going to
receive an iPhone 16.
Regarding A------’s physical health, he was up to date on all medical and dental
appointments. He also received new glasses that cannot be broken. A------ continued to
attend ---------- and was going to start second grade in the fall. A------ had an IEP for
developmental delays and expressive language disorder, which was accommodating
him. He also received speech therapy. A------ participated in the ----- program. A------’s
progress report indicated that he was making progress towards proficiency or meeting
proficiency in all subjects. Regarding A------’s mental health, he was receiving school-
based therapeutic services with Ms. L------. He also attended therapy at Delaware
Guidance with J---- M----. A------ received medication to manage his ADHD. A------ lived
in the home of Ms. M----- with C----- and J--- and was experiencing issues with
bathroom accidents.
Regarding J---’s physical health, he was previously having issues sleeping, but
this was resolved via medication prescribed by a psychiatrist. He was diagnosed with
post-traumatic stress disorder and ADHD. J--- received mental health services at
Journeys Counseling with a mobile outpatient therapist. J--- attended therapy twice a
week. Ms. M----- expressed concerns about J---’s compatibility with his therapist. J---
was not listening to his therapist, threw tantrums, and hit the therapist. J--- attended pre-
K at the --------- ----- --------- ------ and had an IEP for developmental delays and speech
concerns. J--- resided in the home of Ms. M-----, and his transition into the home was
difficult as there were increased reports of destruction.

32
J------ had developmental delays and expressive language disorder. He attended
-------- --- --------- -------- ------ and had been referred to permanency services. He
remained in the home of Ms. T----- and Mr. C---.
DSCYF made a proffer to the Court that both parents were substantiated at Level
III for Medical Neglect for the incident involving A------’s burn. Mother’s order was a
default order entered on April 22, 2025. No objections were made to the proffer. Ms.
Witherell argued that neither parent had completed their case plan, and the children had
been in foster care of the Department for a period of one year, and the next hearing
should be a Termination of Parental Rights (“TPR”) Hearing.5 Mother and Father
objected to the scheduling of the TPR hearing. The Court held that the next hearing
would be a TPR hearing. The Court acknowledged that both parents still had
outstanding elements in their case plans despite having over a year to case plan. The
Court was particularly concerned about Mother’s substance abuse and lack of income.
Father’s biggest barrier was his lack of housing. Additionally, neither the Court nor
DSCYF received Father’s substance abuse evaluation from Brandywine Counseling,
which the Court indicated would be helpful to determine whether Father’s marijuana use
required treatment or impaired his ability to parent. Further, the Court stressed that it
was important for Mother and Father to regularly attend visitation in order to show
improvements in parenting skills. Based upon the evidence, by Order dated July 31,
2025, the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that C-----, A------, J---, and
J------ continued to be dependent children as to both Mother and Father and it was in
their best interests for custody to remain with DSCYF. The Court found that DSCYF
5 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5)(a).

33
exerted reasonable efforts to achieve the permanency goal, which was reunification.
The services provided in the case plans constituted reasonable efforts toward
reunification and termination of parental rights/adoption. The Court found that DSCYF
made reasonable efforts to case plan with Father and Mother.
TPR Trial
On October 21, 2025, the Court held trial on the TPR Petition. Mother was
present and contested the TPR petition by and through her counsel, Ms. Maguire.
Father was present and contested the TPR petition by and through his counsel, Mr.
Vassallo. The Court’s analysis of the evidence and the parties’ positions are as follows.
Positions of the Parties
DSCYF argued that it is in the children’s best interests for the parental rights of
Mother and Father to be terminated and transferred to DSCYF on the grounds of failure
to plan pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5). DSCYF argued that Mother and Father
were given an adequate opportunity to work towards reunification but that both failed to
avail themselves of DSCYF services. Although Mother participated in all the hearings in
this case, she failed to fulfill the elements of her case plan which has been pending for
approximately a year and a half. DSCYF emphasized that the parents have been
involved with DSCYF since February 14, 2020, trying to correct the issues in the
household. Three of the four children were born substance exposed, and all the children
were discovered to have severe dental issues when they were first taken into DSCYF
care. Additionally, they had developmental delays that were not being treated. DSCYF
argued that these issues have only been addressed since the children came into its
custody.

34
DSCYF avers that they gave Mother at least two family interventionists, who
could have helped her complete the elements of her case plan, but the assignments
had to close because she was not working with the interventionists. DSCYF argued that
Mother failed to engage in visitations with the children. Ms. H---- testified at the TPR trial
that the Department made a referral to Grandma’s House on July 24, 2025, to increase
visits in a home-like setting, for up to four hours per week. These visits would occur in
Dover, where the children reside. Mother’s referral was accepted, and orientation was
scheduled for August 26, 2025. When the family interventionists were involved, they
were available to assist Mother with transportation to get Mother to the appointment.
The referral to Grandma’s House was ultimately closed as of September 12, 2025. If
Mother had engaged in the orientation at Grandma’s House, DSCYF would have been
able to determine whether Mother could handle all four children because the program
came with a coach who would give direct feedback on parenting behaviors and routines.
Had Mother engaged in the service and shown progress in her interaction with the
children, DSCYF would have been able to move towards visits in her home. Mother
never “graduated” to that level of care of her children. Furthermore, Mother has not had
an in-person visit with the children, who are all ten years old and under, since July 11,
2025. The children have asked to see their parents, but Mother’s response was that it
was too far to travel and not good for her mental health.
DSCYF argued that Mother has been in treatment programs since she gave
birth to substance exposed infants, but she has not managed to maintain sobriety for
more than a two-month period. Mother testified that she has been sober since April

35
2025. However, DSCYF alleged that Mother has only been sober for two months
because alcohol interfered with her sobriety.
DSCYF expressed concern about the lack of parental supervision over the
children, particularly after A------ sustained a burn while cooking unsupervised; further,
neither Mother nor Father sought medical evaluation or treatment for said burn. Mother
and Father were substantiated and placed on Level 3 in the Child Protection Registry
because of this incident.
Mother ultimately underwent a psychological evaluation with Dr. B----------.
According to Dr. B----------, it was difficult to determine the type of treatment Mother
needed because she needed to be sober for at least six weeks before an accurate
mental health evaluation could be completed. Mother had not been sober for that period
of time. DSCYF argued that Mother did not complete the subsequent mental health
evaluation once she had been sober for the requisite six weeks. Furthermore, although
not stated in her case plan, DSCYF recommended six months of sobriety for
unsupervised visits and reunification. Additionally, it has been established that Mother
has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, and that there was
no real evidence that these mental health issues were being addressed.
Mother and others have testified that she has consistently maintained stable
housing. At the TPR hearing, Mother testified that she is moving to a new house.
DSCYF expressed concern that Mother was unable to provide any details regarding the
new housing into which she testified she was moving. Lastly, Mother has remained
unemployed throughout the duration of this case and has been unable to obtain

36
disability benefits or any other source of income. DSCYF argued that Mother does not
have the financial means to meet the needs of herself and her children.
Lastly, DSCYF noted that neither of the parents did anything for J------’s birthday
on ------- -. Mother testified that she did not do anything for J------’s birthday on ------- -
because “he’s in DFS custody.” Ms. S----- testified that neither of the parents contacted
her or anyone at Pressley Ridge about doing something special for the boys on their
birthdays in -------.
It is DSCYF’s position that Father has failed to fulfill the elements of his case
plan, which has been pending for almost two years. Father has not visited the children
since July 11, 2025, but he was able to maintain telephone contact. DSCYF expressed
strong concern that Father is very passive and relegates all parental responsibility to
Mother, even when Mother demonstrated inability to parent. When asked about the
children’s dental issues, Father said he could not take them to the dentist because he
was working. He failed to provide the children with services they needed. DSCYF
emphasized that Father did not know where the children were in school, does not ask
them about their day, what they were learning, or what their grades were. At the TPR
trial, when asked about his responsibilities as outlined by the Court, Father testified that
he does not pay attention at the court hearings.
Regarding Father’s housing, he now pays $300 per month to the person for
whom he provides care and does not have stable housing of his own. Father requested
a housing voucher through the Wilmington Housing Authority but has been on the
waiting list since April. Father is working 72 hours per week for $15.00 per hour, but

37
DSCYF expressed concern regarding Father’s lack of available funds and ability to
budget in order to meet the financial needs of himself and his four children.
DSCYF argued that Father has not followed recommendations for substance
abuse treatment. At the TPR trial, the parties stipulated that Father attended three
sessions at Brandywine counseling, one in November of 2024, one in December of
2024, and February 2025, and that although Father was recommended services, he
declined services at that time and has not returned to Brandywine. When questioned
why he did not follow recommendations for substance abuse treatment, Father
expressed that he did not believe he needed treatment for marijuana use because it
was not the reason the children were removed and it did not impact his ability to be
employed. Furthermore, at the TPR trial, Ms. H---- testified that Father’s urine analysis
was positive for amphetamines, and he did not engage in any treatment for this
substance. Further, Father admitted that he used an E-pill.6 When cross-examined by
Ms. Witherell about whether he admitted to Brandywine Counseling that he used any
drugs other than cannabis, Father testified “I don’t recall, but if I did…I took an E-pill
because I went to a party.”
DSCYF argued that there is evidence of domestic violence between Mother and
Father as evidenced by the criminal history. Father has been incarcerated for periods of
time during the children’s lives. DSCYF argued that he has failed to recognize that his
overuse of marijuana, whether legal or not, can still impact one’s ability to parent.
DSCYF argued that the parents, despite completing a few elements of their case plans,
6 An “E-pill,” commonly referred to as ecstasy or MDMA, is a Schedule I substance under the Controlled
Substances Act. US Department of Justice, MDMA (Ecstasy) Fast Facts at 1,
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs3/3494/3494p.pdf.

38
are in no better position to be able to care for the children than when the children first
came into DSCYF custody.
DSCYF stated that the children are adjusting very well to their current
environments, considering improvements in their physical, dental, educational, and
mental health. DSCYF argued that all of these factors weigh heavily in favoring
terminating the parents’ rights.
Mother, through counsel, requested that the petition be denied, and that custody
be rescinded to her. Alternatively, she asked for a trial reunification for Mother and
Father to show they can care for the children, provided that the children are not placed
far from the parents’ current residence, and there are no restrictions on transportation.
On behalf of Mother, Ms. Maguire argued that Mother was missing some visits prior to
July because she was active in treatment, which was a requirement of the case plan.
Ms. Maguire stated that Mother was forced to pick between completing the treatment
plan and missing the visits with the children, and Mother has made significant progress
on her sobriety and will continue to engage in treatment for her substance use. Mother
wanted to focus on being sober so she could move onto the next steps in getting the
children back. Further, once the visits moved to Dover in July, a hardship was placed on
Mother and Father to attend the visits. Mother was unable to obtain transportation, and
Father’s employment made it difficult to attend visitation. Ms. Maguire argued that,
despite these struggles, DSCYF believed that it was not in the children’s best interests
to move the visits closer to the parents’ residence, even though it may have only added
an additional fifteen minutes to the drive. Ms. Maguire stated that Mother has
consistently maintained that she has been off drugs since about April. Ms. Maguire

39
argued that, as Mr. R-------- testified, three of Mother’s positive urinalysis tests were
attributable to alcohol. Mother testified that she only drank on special occasions and
drinking was not a habit. Additionally, Mother was willing to continue to work with
DSCYF if the children were placed with her.
On behalf of Father, Mr. Vassallo argued that the case comes down to a best
interest analysis. He argued that factors (1), (2), and (3) weigh in favor of keeping the
family unit intact as Mother, Father, and the children all want to keep the family unit
intact. Additionally, moving the visitations to Dover strained the parents’ ability to attend
and build a bond with the children. Mr. Vassallo stated that Father is employed, willing
to make changes, and implement the lessons he had learned in parenting classes.
Lastly, Mr. Vassallo contends that there is nothing in Father’s criminal history that
precludes him from having the children in his care.
Mr. Holloway argued that elements of Mother’s case plan were incomplete, even
though there has been progress. He argued that Mother completed a program for
substance abuse, but there was testimony that she has relapsed with alcohol. It was
Mother’s position that alcohol did not count, and it was Essential’s position that alcohol
does count. Mother has not secured employment. Mr. Holloway indicated that while
Mother has had stable housing through the Wilmington Housing Authority throughout
this case, Mother testified that she is moving in the near future and did not provide
DSCYF with a physical address of the new home, and, thus, her housing arrangement
was unstable. Mr. Holloway argued that Mother did not complete her case plan
elements related to mental health and substance use, as Dr. B---------- recommended a
mental health evaluation at a point where Mother had been sober for a period of time,

40
and the record did not reflect that this had occurred. Regarding Father, Mr. Holloway
stated the housing and substance use elements were outstanding on Father’s case
plan. Specifically, Father was recommended for substance use treatment in his case
plan, but Father did not seek or engage with treatment, arguing that it was unnecessary.
Regarding the best interest factors, Mr. Holloway argued that the parent’s wishes
to have their children returned to them weighs in favor of Mother and Father. Further,
while some of the children are very young, Mr. Holloway avers that they have expressed
wanting to return to their father, if that was an option, which weighs in favor of Mother
and Father. Mr. Holloway argued, however, that the majority of this case falls in the
other best interest factors about the mental, physical, and emotional health of everyone
involved. He emphasized the lack of dental care the children received when residing
with their parents. The children’s foster parents have put in significant effort to address
the children’s dental needs. Further, the children suffer developmental delays that must
be addressed. Mr. Holloway contended that these problems were not addressed before,
and that they all factor into the mental, emotional, and physical health of the children in
this case. Mr. Holloway argued that factor (5) weighs strongly in favor of termination
because the parents, while well-intentioned, are very overwhelmed or would have
trouble getting to the children’s appointments. Father’s work has been an impediment to
completing the items on his case plan. Mr. Holloway stated that it is not that Father does
not care, it is that it does not appear that the children will be able to get everything they
need if placed in Mother’s and Father’s care. Lastly, Mr. Holloway argued that because
there have been so many third parties that have been necessarily involved, the
evidence is overwhelming that the parents are unable to meet the needs of the children.

41
Therefore, it is in the children’s best interests for Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to
be terminated and transferred to DSCYF.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard for Termination of Parental Rights
The United States Supreme Court has held that a parent’s interest in his or her
children is one of the “oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the]
Court.”7 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.”8 Likewise, the Delaware Supreme Court has found that
parental rights are “fundamental liberties” which may not be abrogated absent
compelling circumstances.9
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.10 In
addition, the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (“ASFA”) emphasizes the
7 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).
8 Id at 68-69.
9 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).
10 See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-167 (1944); In the Matter of Burns, 519 A.2d 638, 645
(Del. 1986); See Also Daber, 470 A.2d at 726. (“A society which arrogates to itself the power to intervene
and disrupt [the parent-child relationship] can do so only for the most compelling reasons necessary to
correct or protect a child from circumstances which directly threaten or affect the minor's physical or
emotional health.”)

42
importance of child safety and a child’s need 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.11 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.’”12
In Delaware, the statutory standard for terminating parental rights consists of a
two-part analysis.13 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.14 If
the statutory basis is failure to plan adequately for the children’s physical needs or
mental and emotional health and development, the Court must also find at least one or
more of the conditions listed in the statute.15 The Court must review whether the State
developed a meaningful case plan and made reasonable efforts to reunify the family or
11 In re K.L.T., 2001 WL 493113 (Del. Fam. Ct. Jan 22, 2001).
12 Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 218.
13 See Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000).
14 Id. See also In re Hanks, 553 A.2d 830, 833 (Del. 1982).
15 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5), failure to plan, provides: A child is in DSCYF custody or placed by a licensed
agency and the respondent is not able or has failed to plan adequately for the child's physical needs or
mental and emotional health and development, and at least 1 of the following conditions are met:
a. The child has been in DSCYF custody or placed by a licensed agency for at least 1 year.
b. The child has been in DSCYF custody or placed by a licensed agency for at least 6 months and the
child came into care as an infant.
c. DSCYF previously had custody of the child or another child of the respondent.
d. The respondent has a history of dependency, neglect, abuse, or lack of care of the child or another
child.
e. The respondent is incapable of discharging parental responsibilities due to extended or repeated
incarceration, but the Court may consider the respondent's postconviction conduct.

43
avoid out of home placement.16 Second, if the Court finds a statutory basis for
termination of parental rights, then the Court must determine whether severing the
parental ties is in the best interests of the child, as that term is defined in 13 Del. C. §
722.17
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.18 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.19 The Delaware Supreme Court
has described the clear and convincing standard of proof as “evidence that ‘produces in
the mind of the trier of fact an abiding conviction that the truth of [the] factual
contentions [is] ‘highly probable.’”20 In addition, clear and convincing evidence “means
to prove something that is highly probable, reasonably certain, and free from serious
doubt.”21
16 D.F.S. v. N.S. and R.T., 2009 WL 5206720, at *18 (Del. Fam. Ct. Dec 11, 2009).
17 In re Hanks, 553 A.2d at 833.
18 See Patricia A.F. v. James R.F., 451 A.2d 830, 832 (Del. 1982).
19 Id.
20 Hudak v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140, 147 Del. Supr. (2002). Citing Cerberus Int'l v. Apollo Mgmt., 794 A.2d
1141 (Del. Supr. 2002) (quoting In re Rowe, 566 A.2d 1001, 1003 (Del.Jud.1989)). See Also Shipman v.
Division of Social Services, 454 A.2d 767, 769 (Del.Fam.Ct.1982) (holding that clear and convincing
means the degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the fact-finder “a firm belief or conviction as to
allegations sought to be established”), aff'd, Betty J.B. v. Division of Social Services, 460 A.2d 528 (Del.
Supr.1983). Accord 29 Am. Jur.2d Evidence § 157 (1994) (collecting cases); 2 John W. Strong,
Mccormick On Evidence § 340 (5th ed. 2001) (“It has been persuasively suggested that [the clear and
convincing standard] could be more simply and intelligibly translated to the jury if they were instructed that
they must be persuaded that the truth of the contention is ‘highly probable.’”).
21 Clark v. Clark, 994 A.2d 744 (Table) *3 (Del. Supr. 2010).

44
The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law under the
clear and convincing standard described above.
B. Statutory Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights
Pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5), DSCYF seeks to terminate and transfer the
parental rights of Mother and Father to DSCYF on the ground of failure to plan.
1. Failure to Plan – Mother
The Court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence showing that Mother
has failed to plan for the physical and mental needs of C-----, A------, J---, and J------, as
well as their emotional health and development.22 Furthermore, the children have been
in DSCYF care for a year and eight months as of the date of the hearing,23 DSCYF has
previously had custody of Mother’s older children,24 and Mother has a history of
substantiations.25
Mother acknowledged that she understood the elements and obligations of the
case plan at the Dispositional Hearing. Mother has failed to address the elements of her
case plan, which is outlined in the Procedural History and Factual Background section.
Parenting Behaviors and Routines:
Mother completed a parenting course and received a certificate of completion.
However, neither DSCYF nor any other party was able to determine whether Mother
22 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5). The Court notes that the statutory ground of failure to plan can be established
if the parent(s) “are not able, or [emphasis added] have failed, to plan adequately.” Here, the Court finds
that there is clear and convincing evidence establishing that Mother has failed to plan the children’s
needs.
23 13 Del. C. § §1103(a)(5)(a).
24 Id. (c).
25 Id. (d).

45
utilized skills she learned in the parenting program when interacting with the children,
considering that the last in-person session was on July 11, 2025. A family interventionist
was assigned to Mother, but services were closed due to Mother not working with them.
DSCYF made a referral for Mother to Grandma’s House on July 24, 2025, to increase
visits in a home-like setting. The referral ultimately closed because Mother failed to
engage in the orientation that was scheduled for August 26, 2025. Other than the last
in-person visit Mother had with the children on July 11, 2025, Mother requested
telephone contact, which took place once or twice. Mother expressed to Ms. H---- and
the children over the phone that she was unable to come to Dover for the visits due to
the impact on her mental health, which was troubling to the children. These phone calls
from Mother to Ms. M-----’s phone were discontinued as a result. It was explained to
Mother that the content of the calls was troubling to the children. Mother met with Ms. H-
--- monthly to obtain her availability for visitations. Initially, the main barrier was her
required attendance at substance treatment with Essentials, which occurred Monday
through Friday. However, once Mother transitioned to Limen House for substance use
treatment, she had Tuesdays and Thursdays available for visits with the children.
Mother’s availability was provided to Pressley Ridge to assist with coordinating a
schedule that would work. Ms. S----- testified that because she had another family visit
on Tuesday, she provided Mother with the Thursday time slot. Ms. S----- testified that
Mother indicated that she did not want to do the visit unless it was in ---------- or New
Castle County. Further, Ms. H---- testified that Mother indicated that she could not come
to Dover for the visits due to the negative impact on her mental health. Aside from the
IOP treatment, Mother was not engaged in any other type of mental health treatment to

46
better manage her visits with the children in Dover. Mother indicated that the barrier to
having the visits on Tuesdays and Thursdays was that there was too much going on
and it had a negative impact on her mental health. However, at this time, she was not
caring for the four children, was not working, and had Tuesdays and Thursdays off from
substance use treatment at Limen House. Additionally, Mother only sporadically
attended the children’s school, medical, and therapeutic appointments. This element of
the case plan has not been completed.
Legal System:
The legal system element of Mother’s case plan was deemed satisfied pursuant
to the Post Permanency Hearing Order dated July 31, 2025. However, the Court notes
that Mother was substantiated for A------’s burn and received a Level III designation on
the Child Protection Registry, which remains for eight years.
Substance Use:
Mr. R--------, Mother’s primary therapist for substance abuse at Essentials
Recovery, testified that Mother’s treatment at Essentials occurred between May 9th until
the end of July 2025. He testified that Mother did not successfully complete the program
because she was unsuccessfully discharged. Mr. R-------- testified that Essentials
offered transportation to and from the services and that there were difficulties in getting
Mother to the facility. Mr. R-------- testified he was not sure of the specific reason as to
why there were difficulties. He testified that Mother’s attendance at the program was
insufficient. Mother initially started out in the Partial Hospitalization Program (“PHP”),
which was twenty hours of treatment a week. She made progress and met the criteria,
and she was stepped down to IOP which was nine to twelve hours of treatment per

47
week. Mother made progress at the IOP level but was experiencing negative side
effects from her prescribed medication. Mr. R-------- testified that Mother had difficulties
with group members that resulted in shouting matches, and she displayed a temper at
the group sessions.
Mr. R-------- testified that Mother tested positive for alcohol use on May 26, 2025,
July 7, 2025, and July 21, 2025 despite being informed during orientation that she
needed to abstain from all substances, regardless of a substance’s legal status. To
address her relapse, a higher level of care was offered, taking her back to PHP, which,
as stated above, was twenty hours per week. Mother agreed to attend PHP. However,
her conflict with the individual in the group sessions led to her unsuccessful discharge at
Essentials. Mr. R-------- testified that a referral was made to Limen House’s substance
use program, which Mother accepted.
Mr. W------ testified that Mother successfully completed the substance abuse
program at Limen House, which was approximately eight weeks starting in August
2025. During that period, Mother had a urinalysis at the intake and periodically through
the eight-week cycle. Mr. W------ testified that she did not test positive for any illicit
substance or alcohol. Mother also successfully completed intensive outpatient sessions.
Mr. W------ testified that Limen House encourages their patients to engage in recovery
communities, which are independent of Limen House’s services. Mr. W------ testified
that Mother was engaged in these programs while she was with Limen House.
DSCYF indicated at the Third Review Hearing that Mother needed to be
substance free for a minimum of six consecutive months in order to contemplate
unsupervised visits or reunification. However, the record reflects that Mother has only

48
been sober for about two months. Dr. B---------- testified that Mother needed to be
substance free for six consecutive weeks in order to be accurately evaluated for mental
health needs, including mental health treatment and coping skills identified in her case
plan. While Mother may have been sober for six weeks, she has not been re-evaluated
for mental health needs. Given Mother’s extensive substance use history including three
of the children being born substance exposed, Mother’s use of MDMA and alcohol
during the course of her case plan, and the incomplete treatment programs, the Court
does not find this element of the case plan satisfied.
Mental Health Coping Skills:
Mother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. As of
October 13, 2025, Mother had been engaged in medication treatment and had an
appointment with a medication manager. She is currently prescribed 20 milligrams of
Prozac and 100 milligrams of Seroquel. At the Permanency Hearing, Dr. B----------
recommended that Mother enroll in a detox substance abuse program with therapy
components outside of a brief check in with a medical provider. Mother was expected to
follow this recommendation per her case plan. Further, Dr. B---------- opined that Mother
should get a psychiatric evaluation after she treats her substance abuse and has
remained sober of substances for six consecutive weeks. Ms. H---- was not sure
whether Mother has engaged in any type of treatment for her bipolar disorder other than
working with Limen House. Mother testified that she completed the mental health
evaluation but denied that Dr. B---------- recommended that she receive therapeutic
services. Mother testified that she does not remember what Dr. B---------- testified to at
the Permanency Hearing. Therefore, Mother has not satisfied this element of her case

49
plan because the record does not reflect that she has followed Dr. B----------’s
recommendations.
Basic Needs and Financial Resources:
Mother has been unemployed throughout the duration of this case. Ms. H----
testified that Mother has not made efforts to find employment. According to Ms. H----,
Mother intended to collect child support from Father and file for disability benefits with
Social Security. She also expressed a desire to be a YouTube content creator. On
cross-examination by Ms. Maguire, Ms. H---- affirmed that Mother expressed that she
wanted to work with helping people with addictions. Mother testified that she needs to
be clean for a year to work in this field. To Ms. H---- ’s knowledge, Mother has not done
any of these actions successfully. Ms. H---- testified that Mother applied for Social
Security for her disability, which was denied, but Ms. H---- does not know the status of
the application. When cross-examined about this element of her case plan, Mother
stated that it was never part of the case plan, and it was added towards the end.
However, the Court notes that in the Dispositional Order dated May 23, 2024, Mother
was required to obtain and maintain employment or some significant source of income
that was sufficient to meet the needs of herself and the family under the Basic Needs
and Financial Resources element of Mother’s case plan. When cross-examined about
why Mother has not obtained a job, Mother testified that she is in recovery, taking care
of herself, and doing what she needs to do to get her children back. Regarding Mother’s
Social Security application, Mother testified that she told Ms. H---- that she was going to
get Social Security.

50
Mother resides in subsidized housing through the Wilmington Housing Authority
with her adult son, and based on her income, the subsidy covers the entirety of her rent
and utility costs. Mother testified that she would soon be relocating to alternative
housing, but did not provide DSCYF or the Court with details regarding the location,
stability, or adequacy of her new potential housing. Mother has failed to complete the
element of her case plan by obtaining and maintaining employment or some significant
source of income sufficient to meet the needs of herself and her children.
The Children’s Educational and Health Needs:
Mother attended IEP meetings sporadically. Mother has been notified of the
children’s medical appointments throughout the case. From June 2025 through the TPR
trial, Mother has not attended most of the children’s dental and medical appointments.
Ms. M------- expressed concern that Mother has historically and recently been unable to
maintain her own medical appointments, let alone those of her four children. Moreover,
Ms. M----- has been attending all the services for the children at their school and does
not see the parents at any of these meetings. Lastly, Mother has not participated in any
of the mental health meetings for the children.
******
Based upon the evidence outlined above, the Court finds clear and convincing
evidence that Mother has failed to plan for the children’s physical and emotional needs.
Although Mother had taken steps towards resolving the parenting element of her case
plan with the completion of a parenting class, Mother failed to successfully work with a
family interventionist who would have assisted her in completing the elements of her
case plan. Mother’s visitation has been inconsistent, and she has not seen the children

51
in person since July 11, 2025. Prior to that visit, Mother missed two visits in April, three
of four visits in May, and three of four in June. The Court had previously stressed to
Mother the importance of attending visits to allow for the assessment of her parenting
skills. Since the July visit, Mother has indicated that distance and her mental health has
prevented her from seeing the children.
Regarding substance use, Mother had positive drug test results for MDMA and
amphetamines and Mother tested positive for alcohol on three occasions. While Mother
completed her substance use treatment at Limen House, which she started in August
2025, she has only been sober for two months out of approximately the past year and a
half. Mother was required to complete a subsequent mental health evaluation once she
remained sober for six weeks to obtain an accurate mental health diagnosis, but the
record does not reflect that Mother has completed said evaluation.
Further, Mother has failed to obtain employment or an alternative source of
regular income to support herself and the four children as required in the case plan.
While Mother has had stable, subsidized housing through the Wilmington Housing
Authority voucher, she is relocating and did not provide DSCYF with the home’s
address.
Mother has infrequently attended the children’s medical, dental, and educational
appointments.
In addition to this finding, the statute requires that the Court find clear and
convincing evidence that at least one of the conditions in 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5) is met.
Conditions (a), (c), and (d) have been met.
a. The child has been in DSCYF custody or placed by a licensed agency
for at least 1 year.

52
As of the date of this hearing, C-----, A------, J---, and J------ have been in
DSCYF’s care for a year and eight months.
b. The child has been in DSCYF custody or placed by a licensed agency
for at least 6 months and the child came into care as an infant.
The facts of this case do not apply to this condition because the children were
eight, five, three, and two years old when they came into DSCYF custody.
c. DSCYF previously had custody of the child or another child of the
respondent.
DSCYF has previously taken custody of Mother’s older children.26 At the
Adjudicatory Hearing, Mother testified and recalled that in 2013, the older four children
were taken into custody because one of her son’s family repeatedly reported her to
DSCYF. Ms. H---- also testified that DSCYF has previously taken custody of the older
four children for a period of time.
d. The respondent has a history of dependency, neglect, abuse, or lack of
care of the child or another child.
In 2013, Mother was substantiated for Other Physical Abuse, Level II with a
secondary finding of Emotional Abuse (Mild to Moderate), Level I, and Dependency
regarding two of her older children.27 On January 21, 2015, Mother was substantiated
for Physical Neglect (Moderate), Level II and the family was transferred to a treatment
26 DSCYF Exhibit #2 at 4.
27 Id.

53
unit on March 31, 2015.28 In February 2024, Mother was substantiated for Other
Medical Neglect, Level III regarding A------’s chest burn.29
e. The respondent is incapable of discharging parental responsibilities
due to extended or repeated incarceration, but the Court may consider
the respondent's postconviction conduct
The facts of this case do not apply to this condition as to Mother.
* * * * *
The Court finds that DSCYF has established by clear and convincing evidence
that three conditions set forth in 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5) have been met, even though
only one condition would be sufficient. Thus, there is clear and convincing evidence that
Mother has failed to plan for C-----’s, A------’s, J---’s, and J------’s needs and that DSCYF
has established a statutory ground for terminating her parental rights.
2. Failure to Plan – Father
The Court also finds that DSCYF established by clear and convincing evidence
that Father has failed to plan for C-----’s, A------’s, J---’s, and J------’s physical and
emotional needs.
Ms. H---- testified at the Dispositional Hearing on May 7, 2024, that she
discussed and outlined the areas of Father’s case plan with him. Father acknowledged
that he understood the elements and obligations of the case plan. The proposed
elements were also outlined in DSCYF’s testimony at the Dispositional Hearing, at
which Father was present.
Parenting Behaviors and Routines:
28 Id.
29 Id. at 7.

54
Father’s last in-person visit with the children was on July 11, 2025. Father had
the benefit of a family interventionist, and a referral was made to Grandma’s House on
July 24, 2025. Father did not complete any type of program with the family
interventionist. He also did not attend the orientation with Grandma’s House. Without
Father completing the referral to Grandma’s House and engaging in in-person visits with
the children, DSCYF could not transition to increased visitation and decreased
supervision. Father requested assistance with a bus pass to address his transportation
difficulties. However, he never picked up the bus passes from the DSCYF office.
Legal System:
Ms. H---- testified that to her knowledge, Father has no pending charges. The
legal system element of Father’s case plan was deemed satisfied. However, the Court
notes that Father was substantiated for A------s burn and received a Level III
designation on the Child Protection Registry.
Substance Use:
Father was required to undergo a substance abuse evaluation and urine drug
screenings and to follow any subsequent recommendations. While Father attended
three sessions at Brandywine Counseling in November of 2024, December of 2024, and
February of 2025, Father declined services that were recommended to him. Ms. H----
testified that he did not engage in any other type of service to address substance abuse
concerns. Furthermore, Father admitted to taking an E-pill. Additionally, Ms. H----
testified that without Father engaging in Brandywine Counseling or some other
treatment program, DSCYF cannot obtain insight into the level of Father’s cannabis use.
Therefore, Father has not followed recommendations for substance abuse treatment.

55
Mental Health Coping Skills:
No mental health issues were identified as to Father but substance abuse
treatment was recommended.
Basic Needs and Financial Resources:
Father remains employed as a care giver with -----------. However, Father has not
obtained and maintained stable housing of his own, as Father continues to live with his
client. Thus, Father has not completed the housing requirement of his case plan.
The Children’s Educational and Health Needs:
Father rarely attended any educational or medical appointments during the
duration of the case. Father testified that he has not received any information about how
to sign up for a portal regarding the children’s academics and their behavior reports.
Father could not recall where the children went to school. However, in the past court
hearings, there was ample evidence of the children’s school attendance and
educational appointments. Father was aware of the dental decay that the children had
when they came into care, but he did not make an appointment to address it. Further,
Father was notified of the children’s medical appointments, but Ms. M------- testified that
from June 2025 until October 21, 2025, Father has attended none of the children’s
medical and dental appointments.
******
Based upon the evidence outlined above, the Court finds clear and convincing
evidence that Father has failed to plan for the children’s physical and emotional needs.
Father has failed to successfully work with a family interventionist. Regarding substance
use, Father has not engaged with the recommended treatment. Father continues to lack

56
appropriate, independent housing for himself and the four children. Father’s visitation
has been inconsistent, and at the time of trial in late October 2025, he has not seen the
children in person since July 11, 2025. Lastly, Father has failed to attend many of the
children’s medical, dental, and educational appointments.
In addition to this finding, the statute requires that the Court find by clear and
convincing evidence that at least one of the conditions listed in 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5)
is met. Conditions (a) and (d) have been met.
a. The child has been in DSCYF custody or placed by a licensed agency for
at least 1 year.
As of the date of this hearing, C-----, A------, J---, and J------ have been in
DSCYF’s care for a year and eight months.
b. The child has been in DSCYF custody or placed by a licensed agency
for at least 6 months and the child came into care as an infant.
The facts of this case do not apply to this condition because the children were
ages eight, five, three, and two when they came into DSCYF custody.
c. DSCYF previously had custody of the child or another child of the
respondent.
The facts of this case do not apply to this condition as to Father.
d. The respondent has a history of dependency, neglect, abuse, or lack of
care of the child or another child.
In February 2024, Father was substantiated for Other Medical Neglect, Level III
regarding A------’s chest burn.30
30 DSCYF Exhibit #2 at 7.

57
e. The respondent is incapable of discharging parental responsibilities due
to extended or repeated incarceration, but the Court may consider the
respondent's postconviction conduct.
The facts of this case do not apply to this condition as to Father.
* * * * *
In Father’s case, the Court finds that DSCYF has established two conditions set
forth in 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5). Thus, there is clear and convincing evidence that Father
has failed to plan for C-----’s, A------’s, J---’s, and J------’s needs and that DSCYF has
established a statutory ground for terminating his parental rights.
Condition (a) has been satisfied as C-----, A------, J---, and J------ have been in
DSCYF’s custody for one year and eight months as of the date of this hearing.
Condition (d) has been satisfied because Father and Mother were substantiated
for Other Medical Neglect, Level III regarding A------’s chest burn.
3. Reasonable Efforts for Reunification
Since the Court finds that Mother and Father have failed to adequately plan for
the children, the Court must now consider whether DSCYF has made reasonable efforts
to reunify them with the children.
In its efforts to assist Mother with reunification, DSCYF provided her with a case
plan at the Dispositional Hearing. The case plan was a reasonable plan that sought to
address the circumstances which led to DSCYF’s custody of the children, including a
parenting behaviors and routines component, legal system component, substance
abuse component, mental health coping skills component, basic needs and financial
resources component, and a children’s educational and health needs component.

58
The Court discussed the steps taken by DSCYF to contact Mother and to provide
case planning services in the Procedural History section of this Order. Ms. H---- testified
that she frequently went over the elements of the case plan with Mother, and DSCYF
provided bus passes to assist her in case planning. The Court also takes judicial notice
of its prior Orders in these proceedings31 in which it consistently found that DSCYF
made reasonable efforts to achieve reunification with Mother, which was the
permanency goal until the Permanency Hearing. The Court incorporates its prior
reasonable efforts findings by reference and once again finds that DSCYF made
reasonable efforts to reunify Mother with the children in this case by clear and
convincing evidence.
Ms. H---- testified that she reviewed the elements of the case plan with Father
that included a parenting behaviors and routines component, legal system component,
substance abuse component, mental health coping skills component, basic needs and
financial resources component, and a children’s educational and health needs
component. The Court takes judicial notice of its prior Orders in these proceedings in
which it consistently found that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to achieve reunification
with Father. Despite numerous efforts by DSCYF, Father has not shown efforts in
completing all of the elements of his plan, particularly the substance use element and
housing. The Court incorporates its prior reasonable efforts findings by reference and
once again finds that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to reunify Father with the
children. DSCYF also has an obligation to exert reasonable efforts to identify any fit and
31 DRE 202(d)(1) directs that a Court may take judicial notice of records of the Court in which the action is
pending.

59
willing relatives to care for the child.32 Exploring family members for placement is a
factor in determining whether DSCYF used reasonable efforts to reunify the family.33
At the best interest meeting on February 27, 2024, Mother provided J--------- M---
-- (“Paternal Grandmother”) as a resource for the children. At the Adjudicatory Hearing
on April 9, 2024, Ms. H---- testified that DSCYF attempted to locate relatives who could
be potential resources for the children. On February 28, 2024, relative notification letters
were sent. The first letter was sent to A------, Mother’s adult daughter. Ms. H---- had
phone contact with her. The second letter was sent to A------ R----- (“Maternal Aunt”),
with whom Ms. H---- also had phone contact. Ms. H---- informed Maternal Aunt that her
nephews were in foster care and asked whether she would be interested in being a
placement resource. Maternal Aunt indicated that she would need to get back to her
due to the children’s ages. A third letter was sent to Paternal Grandmother, who
indicated that she wanted to be a placement resource. The fourth letter was sent to T----
R------- (“Maternal Grandmother”). The extent of the conversation with Maternal
Grandmother was a confirmation of receipt of the letter.
At the TPR hearing, Ms. H---- testified that it is an ongoing conversation with
Mother to locate potential relatives that might be able to care for the children while
Mother works on her sobriety and other elements of her case plan. Ms. H---- testified
that Mother has not provided any other additional persons to explore other than those
outlined above. When asked about potential relatives, Mother’s response was that “Her
children are coming home to her.” Ms. H---- testified that Maternal Aunt and Maternal
32 13 Del. C. § 2511(a)(6).
33 Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 209

60
Grandmother did not become suitable options during the time DSCYF has had the case.
Ms. H---- testified that no other relatives were identified by Mother as possible
resources. The children had occasional contact with Paternal Grandmother. Paternal
Grandmother would attend visitation virtually when Mother or Father would call or
FaceTime her. Regarding Maternal Aunt and Paternal Grandmother, DSCYF concluded
that they did not pass DSCYF’s assessment.
Considering that evidence, and in accordance with the Court’s findings at
previous hearings conducted in this matter, the Court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to identify relatives of both Mother and
Father who were willing and able to care for C-----, A------, J---, and J------.
C. Best Interests of the Child
After concluding that the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights exist,
the Court must next determine that the termination is in the children’s best interests.34
In reaching its decision, the Court applies the factors set forth in 13 Del. C. §722.35 The
34 See Division of Family Services v. Hutton, 765 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Del. 2001).
35 Pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 722:
(a) The Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in
accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, the
Court shall consider all relevant factors including:
(1) The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to such child’s custody and residential
arrangements;
(2) The wishes of the child as to such child’s custodian or custodians and residential arrangements;
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with such child’s parents, grandparents,
siblings, persons cohabiting 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 interests;
(4) The child’s adjustment to such child’s home, school and community;
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;

61
Court balances the § 722 factors “in accordance with the factual circumstances
presented to the Family Court in each case.”36 In some situations, the weight of one
factor will counterbalance the combined weight of the other factors.37
1. The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to such child’s
custody and residential arrangements;
Mother represented her desire to reunify with C-----, A------, J---, and J------.
Father also represented his desire to reunify with the children.
2. The wishes of the child as to such child’s custodian or custodians
and residential arrangements;
The Court did not conduct an interview with C-----, A------, J---, and J------ to
ascertain their wishes regarding their custodial and residential arrangements due to
their ages, and no such request was made by Mother or Father. However, the Court
received evidence regarding the children’s wishes from Mr. Holloway and Ms. F--------.
Mr. Holloway stated that the children have made comments to Ms. F-------- that they
would like to return to their Father, if that was an option.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with such child’s
parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabiting in the
relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other
(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child
under § 701 of this title;
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
(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 of a criminal offense.
(b) The Court shall not presume that a parent, because of such parent’s sex, is better qualified than
the other parent to act as a joint or sole legal custodian for a child or as the child’s primary residential
parent, nor shall it consider conduct of a proposed sole or joint custodian or primary residential
parent that does not affect such parent’s relationship with the child.
36 Ross v. Ross, 992 A.2d 1237 (Table) *3 (Del. Supr. 2010).
37 Id., at *3 (citing Fisher v. Fisher, 691 A.2d 619, 623 (Del. Supr. 1997)).

62
residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect
the child’s best interests;
Mother has not served as a primary caregiver to C-----, A------, J---, and J------
since February 2024. Since that time, C-----, A------, and J--- have resided in the foster
home of Ms. M-----, while J------ has resided in the foster home of Ms. T----- and Mr. C---
. Mother has not been consistent in visiting the children throughout the duration of this
case. Her last visit with the children was on July 11, 2025. In the instant hearing, Ms. S--
--- testified that the boys know that she supervises the visits with Mother and Father and
often ask her when the next visit will be. Ms. S----- stated that C----- has been negatively
impacted by the lack of in-person visits with his parents since July, while A------ and J---
have not been impacted as much due to their younger age. Most of the phone contact
between the parents and the children was with C----- because he is at an age where he
can hold a longer conversation with his parents. The children have a relationship with
Paternal Grandmother, as she would be called on FaceTime during Mother’s and
Father’s visits with the children.
Ms. M------- testified that Mother purchased drones for the children and told them
about them. The children were made to believe that they would not receive the drones
until they returned home, and C----- suggested that Mother bring them to the next visit.
In the Permanency Order, it was ordered that Mother not make promises to the children
about giving them drones for fear it may cause disappointment. Ms. M------- testified that
there had been discussions with Mother about this issue in the past. Moreover, C-----
was particularly affected when Mother expressed to him that he was too far away to
visit. Ms. M----- testified that when Mother expressed this, he went silent and was
emotionally upset. C----- cried about this incident. The next day, this incident was the

63
first thing C----- mentioned to the workers at Pressley Ridge. Mother never sent the
drones to Ms. M-----’s home.
Ms. M----- testified that Mother and Father would promise the children toys, but
they never sent them to Ms. M-----’s home for the children to enjoy. Further, Mother and
Father have never provided any financial support for the children since they have been
in foster care. Mother testified that she did not do anything for J------’s birthday on -------
- because “he’s in DFS custody.” Ms. S----- testified that neither of the parents
contacted her or anyone at Pressley Ridge about doing something special for the boys
on their birthdays in -------. When asked why J------ being in DFS custody stops her from
doing something for his birthday, Mother stated “Because it’s hard. I can’t move how I
want. I can’t. They’re not with me.” Ms. M------- testified that the children reported
wanting to see their parents in person, but Mother stated that it was too far and would
have a negative impact on her mental health.
4. The child’s adjustment to such child’s home, school and community;
C-----, A------, and J--- reside in the foster home of Ms. M-----, while J------ resides
in the foster home of Ms. T----- and Mr. C---. J------ is very happy and comfortable in the
home. He is very excited, likes to sing his ABCs, name all the colors in the room, and
refers to his foster parents as mommy and daddy. He attends daycare at -------- --- -------
-- -------- ------ and has an IEP through ------ School District for his expressive language
disorder and developmental delays. Ms. T----- and Mr. C--- are working with J------ to
address those areas of concern. For instance, they help name things for him and
engage in communication with him. Mr. C--- is particularly engaged with J------ during
the evening, as Ms. T----- works overnight as a nurse. He engages in age-appropriate

64
activities through daycare and has friends there. Ms. T----- has two children of her own.
J------ has bonded well with the young boy in the home, but not so much with the
daughter. Overall, J------ is doing well and is a very sweet boy, according to Ms. M-------.
J--- resides in the M----- household, which is a two-parent household. He has had
some troubles maintaining positive behaviors in the home. He responds well to Ms. M---
--, but if other adults try to give him direction, he struggles to take direction from them.
He has recently exhibited concerning behaviors with smearing feces on the walls.
According to Ms. M-------, he struggles with impulsive actions. J--- has been wetting the
bed more frequently and started to express some aggression towards the family dog.
Other than J--- and his two brothers, there are three other children in the M-----
household. J--- attends kindergarten at -------- ----- --------- ------. According to Ms. M------
-, he is adapting to the school setting, and she has not received any calls for concern for
him. J--- has an IEP, and the last IEP meeting was in April of 2025. Ms. M----- serves as
J---’s educational surrogate, which has not changed since the last court hearing. J---
was last seen for a physical in March 2025, and will not be due until March 2026. J---
would not sleep at night and would roam the home in his previous foster home. He has
not been in the M----- household for as long as his brothers as he was placed there on
March 3rd of 2025. J--- receives his dental care from Smyrna Pediatric Dentistry. During
his last dental appointment on September 10, it was discovered that he had an infection
in three teeth that were capped, which needed to be removed. Ms. M------- testified that
the surgery date was scheduled for the 26th or 28th of October 2025. There were no
concerns about J---’s vision. J--- engages in age-appropriate activities and loves to play
with his siblings. He also has a tablet he utilizes and enjoys playing on it. Lastly, he has

65
a Lifebook referral in progress and is being given child specific recruitment through
CFF.
A------ is in the M----- household and is comfortable there. He and C----- have
been there the longest, so they understand the expectations, structure, and rules of the
home. According to Ms. M-------, A------ still struggles with behaviors in the home, as he
has caused plumbing and flooding issues and stuffs objects down the toilet. He has also
broken his bed frame multiple times by jumping on it. A------ is in second grade at ----- --
--- Elementary School. He has an IEP to address his developmental and learning
delays. There was a best interest meeting for him on May 14th that supported his
transition to the -------- School District. The IEP A------ had was transferred from ----------
-------, where he was receiving mental health supports in the school setting along with
small group supports. Ms. M------- explained that they have a sixty-day review process
in which they determine what other additional supports would better help A------ adjust in
the -------- School District. A------ attends therapy through Delaware Guidance Services
and sees J---- M----. Ms. M------- submitted a higher level of care referral through PBH
Inc. to help A------ receive more support, such as mobile outpatient therapy or
therapeutic support for families, similar to what J--- has. The case has been open, but
Ms. M------- testified that she does not believe a worker has been assigned to it yet. A---
--- sees A---- N---- (“Ms. N----”), who is a nurse practitioner, through Delaware Guidance
Services. He was seen June 5th and was prescribed 27 milligrams of Concerta for
ADHD management. At a recent appointment, Ms. N---- advised that A------ would
benefit from seeing a developmental psychologist or developmental doctor. She
believed that A------’s behaviors were associated with poor cognitive processing. Hence,

66
DSCYF contacted Nemours Children’s Health to get an appointment for A------, and he
is scheduled for an appointment on January 6th, 2026. DSCYF has had to get him
glasses that are sturdier and have a strap, so he does not break them. A------ likes to
attend community events, Bible study, and is enrolled in fall soccer.
According to Ms. M-------, C----- is doing well in the M----- household. He has had
some inappropriate behavior surrounding lying. Other than that, there have been no
major behavioral concerns. C----- tends to parent his younger siblings, telling them what
they should or should not do. He is older than the other kids at school and tends to
parent them. C----- receives services through ---- ---- ----- -------- ------ for educational
supports, which has been helping him. C----- is in third grade, but should be in fifth
grade, age wise. There has been discussion about advancing him up a grade level to be
with kids his own age. The educational team at -------- School District advised Ms. M-----
-- that they felt that he still needed academic support in the grade level he is currently in,
but they would continue to monitor this concern. C----- was in the Talented and Gifted
Program (“TAG”) at ---------- -------, but Ms. M------- does not believe he has been
selected for the TAG program at -------- School District yet, as it is still early in the school
year. C----- attends therapy weekly and had an intake evaluation with Ms. N---- and was
prescribed another 18 milligrams of Concerta for his ADHD diagnoses. Ms. M-------
explained that DSCYF submitted a higher level of care referral for C-----, which has
been opened but a therapist has not been assigned yet. C----- likes attending
community events, Bible study, and playing sports. He is enrolled in fall basketball.
5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;

67
Mother reports having been diagnosed from bipolar disorder, depression, and
anxiety. She is currently prescribed 20 milligrams of Prozac and 100 milligrams of
Seroquel. Ms. H---- was not sure whether Mother has engaged in any type of treatment
for her bipolar disorder other than working with Limen House. As stated above, Dr. B----
------ recommended that a subsequent mental health evaluation be done on Mother after
she has been sober of all substances for six weeks. Mother began sobriety as early as
August 2025, but as of the TPR trial had not undergone the recommended mental
health evaluation. Father completed a mental health evaluation on October 14, 2024,
with Dr. B----------. Dr. B---------- opined that Father did not need a referral for a
psychiatric evaluation, but did recommend a substance abuse evaluation. The Court did
not receive evidence regarding any physical health issues that would affect Mother’s
and Father’s ability to parent.
The Court is mainly concerned with the children’s mental and physical health
under this factor. The record reflects a significant lack of dental care the children
received when residing with their parents, as demonstrated by the acuity and breadth of
the dental treatment required once the children came into care, and how much work the
foster parents have had put in to address the children’s dental problems. Further, the
children suffer developmental delays that were not evaluated or addressed when in
Mother and Father’s care, and which only began to be addressed once the children
came into care. At the TPR hearing, Ms. M------- testified that J------ has an expressive
language disorder, other developmental delays, and recently had oral surgery to fix the
dental issues he came into DSCYF custody with. J------ is up to date on his physical
care, is generally healthy, and up to date on appropriate vaccinations. He attends

68
Smyrna Pediatric Dentistry for his dental care but was referred to the Smile Place for
additional dental needs. He had surgery in February of 2025, and had a post-operation
visit and was seen in July of 2025 for his routine cleaning. There were no concerns with
his dental surgery. Further, there were no concerns regarding his vision. During J---’s
last dental appointment on September 10, he had an infection in three teeth that were
capped and now need to be removed. J--- was approved for Therapeutic Support for
Families (“TSF”) and DSCYF requested that the TSF be put in place. J--- is on
Clonidine to help with his sleep at bedtime. There have been no real concerns regarding
A------’s physical health aside from the recommendation for him to be seen by a
developmental doctor. A------ wears glasses and suffers from exotropia and strabismus
in his left eye, conditions where the eye is misaligned and turns outward. A------’s last
dental appointment was on September 10, 2025, and he will be due within six months
for a cleaning. His dental health has been improving since he has been in care. He was
seen by Nemours in January of 2025 and will need to be seen again. Lastly, C----- had
four cavities at his dental appointment in February 2025, received fillings in March 2025,
and needs braces. His last dental appointment was on September 10th, and he will be
due for another appointment in six months. C----- is up to date on his physical health
and attends Smyrna Pediatric Dentistry. C-----’s vision is checked by his primary care
provider and was last seen in May.
6. Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and
responsibilities to their child under §701 of this title;
Mother is not in compliance with her parental rights and responsibilities under
this factor. The children have been in DSCYF’s custody due to her failure and inability
to provide for their welfare with adequate care and nurturing.

69
Due to the children being in the custody of DSCYF Mother has not served as a
primary caregiver since February 22, 2024, when the children were ages eight, five,
three, and two, respectively.
Mother’s visitation with the children throughout this case has been sporadic, and
she has not had in-person contact with them since July 11, 2025. Moreover, phone
contact with Mother and the children was discontinued because Mother told the children
troubling information about not being able to visit them in person. DSCYF provided
Mother with a family interventionist, but Mother failed to engage in services and the
assignment had to close because of Mother’s lack of involvement. Ms. M----- testified
that Mother and Father have never provided any financial support for C-----, A------, and
J---, since they entered DSCYF custody.
As stated earlier in this disposition, Mother’s referral to Grandma’s House to
increase visits in a home-like setting ultimately closed because Mother failed to engage
in the orientation. Additionally, Mother has failed to consistently attend the children’s
mental health meetings, IEP meetings, and medical appointments.
Father is also not in compliance with his parental rights and responsibilities under
this factor. He has not served as a primary caregiver since February 22, 2024, when the
children were eight years old, five years old, three years old, and two years old
respectively. Like Mother, his last in-person visit with the children was on July 11, 2025.
He asked DSCYF for bus passes to assist with transportation, but he never picked the
passes up from the DSCYF office. Father was offered the benefit of a family
interventionist, and a referral was made to Grandma’s House on July 24, 2025, but
Father did not complete any type of program with the family interventionist. Like Mother,

70
he did not attend the orientation with Grandma’s House. Finally, Father has not
provided any financial support for the children since they came into DSCYF custody in
February 2024 and has not secured adequate housing to care for the children..
7. Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this
title;
In August 2024, Father had pending charges for offensive touching against
Mother, and a no unlawful contact order was put in place. According to his criminal
history, the charges were ultimately dismissed. In addition, Ms. H---- ’s testified that,
Father did not engage in any type of counseling for domestic violence. The Court did
not receive any evidence of domestic violence regarding Mother.
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 of a criminal offense.
According to her Delaware certified criminal history, Mother has been convicted
of twelve misdemeanors, including Criminal Impersonation in 2015, Endangering the
Welfare of a Child in 2005, and Failure to Reinstate a License in 2010. To the Court’s
knowledge, Mother has no pending charges at this time.
According to his Delaware certified criminal history, Father has been convicted of
six felonies, including Drug Dealing in 2017 and Possession With Intent to Deliver a
Narcotic Schedule II Controlled Substance in 2009. The Court also notes that he has
twenty misdemeanors, including Criminal Impersonation in 2015 and
Resisting/Hindering a Police Officer in 2008. Father’s most recent charge for Offensive
Touching was dismissed.
§ 722 Conclusion

71
The Court finds clear and convincing evidence under § 722 to establish that it is
in the best interests of C-----, A------, J---, and J------ to terminate Mother’s parental
rights. Factors (3), (4), (5), and (6), support a finding that termination of parental rights
is in the children’s best interests. Although Mother’s expressed desire to reunify under
factor (1), this factor is outweighed by the evidence under factors (3), (4), (5), and (6).
Factors (2) and (7), are neutral in the analysis. While Mother has no recent criminal
history she was convicted of Endangering the Welfare of a Child in 2005 and therefore
Factor (8) weighs against Mother. Mother has had a significant history with DFS.
Moreover, Mother has had over a year and a half to demonstrate her ability to care for
the children and has failed to do so in this Court’s eyes.
Further, the Court finds clear and convincing evidence under § 722 to establish
that it is in the best interests of the children to terminate Father’s parental rights.
Although Father’s expressed desire to reunify under factor (1) and the children’s desires
to reunify with him under factor (2), factors (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) support a finding that
termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Factor (8) is relevant due
to the serious nature of his convictions but the Court does not afford it the same weight
as the other factors due to the passage of time since his last conviction.
Factor (1) supports Mother’s position considering her expressed desire to reunify
with the children. However, despite that contention, the Court notes that she did not
take adequate steps to achieve reunification in the one year and eight months that the
children have been in DSCYF’s custody, as of the date of the hearing. Further, while
Mother desires to reunify with the children, she has not complied with her case plan

72
elements which would have enabled her to do so and failed to engage in visits with the
children over the three month period prior to trial.
Similarly, factor (1) supports Father’s position considering his desire to reunify
with the children. However, despite this contention, the Court notes that he did not take
adequate steps to achieve reunification in the one year and eight months the children
have been in DSCYF’s custody, as of the date of this hearing.
The Court did not conduct an interview with either child to determine their wishes
regarding custodial and residential arrangements due to their young ages, and no such
request was made. However, Mr. Holloway represented what the children have said to
Ms. F-------- as part of the children’s wishes, which is that they want to be reunified with
Father. Thus, factor (2) is neutral in this analysis as to Mother. Factor (2) supports
Father’s position to reunify with the children because the children have expressed to the
CASA that they want to be returned to him, if possible. However, due to the children’s
ages the Court affords this factor little weight.
Under factor (3), the evidence suggests that the children want their parents to
visit them. However, Mother’s visitation with the children throughout this case has been
inconsistent, and Mother has missed several scheduled visitations this year.
Additionally, the children have not had any in-person contact with Mother since July 11,
2025, when phone contact was stopped. The evidence suggests there was a negative
impact on C----- from his parents not visiting him in person. Throughout this case,
Mother and Father have promised the children new toys and gifts if they return home. It
was court-ordered that Mother and Father must not entice the children to come home
with gifts. The children had some contact with Maternal Grandmother, who was

73
sometimes on FaceTime during the parents’ visits. The evidence further suggests that
no additional biological relatives, including Paternal Grandmother, Maternal
Grandmother, and Maternal Aunt have exercised consistent visitation with the children
that would have led to a meaningful bond with them.
Like Mother, Father’s visitation with the children throughout this case has been
inconsistent. He has not had any in-person contact with the children since July 11,
2025. For these reasons, the Court finds that factor (3) supports a finding that it is in the
children’s best interests to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights as to C-----,
A------, J---, and J------.
The evidence under factor (4) suggests that the children have adjusted very well
to their foster homes, school, and community. DSCYF testified that J------ is very happy
in his foster home and is getting help for his expressive language disorder and
developmental delays at ------ School District. He refers to the foster parents as mommy
and daddy. J--- is adapting well to the school setting and takes direction well from Ms.
M-----. A------ is comfortable in the M----- household and likes attending community
events. C----- is also doing well in the M----- household, there are no major behavioral
concerns for him, and he likes attending community events. For those reasons, the
Court finds that the evidence under factor (4) supports a finding that termination of
parental rights is in the children’s best interests as to Mother and Father.
The Court notes that Mother does not have any physical health issues that would
affect her ability to parent the children under factor (5). However, Mother was diagnosed
with bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. Mother was previously prescribed
medications and was recommended to undergo a mental health evaluation with Dr. B----

74
------, subsequent to receiving substance use treatment and remaining substance free
for at least six weeks, which has not occurred. Moreover, Mother indicated that visiting
her children could have a negative impact on her mental health and therefore did not
visit. The Court notes that Father does not have any physical or mental health issues
that would affect his ability to parent the children under factor (5).
As discussed, DSCYF has concerns about the children’s physical and mental
health. The Court made a finding of medical neglect on the part of the parents at the
Adjudicatory hearing due to the lack of dental care, A------’s chest burn, and the failure
of the parents to provide appropriate medical care for him. While in the care of Mother
and Father, the children had significant mental health issues that surfaced when they
came into care. Admittedly, the children’s physical, mental, and dental health is
improving, largely due to the care provided by their foster parents. The Court finds that
Mother and Father cannot manage the appointments needed for their ongoing health
needs if custody is rescinded to them. Therefore, factor (5) weighs in favor of DSCYF’s
request for TPR in the best interest analysis as to both Mother and Father.
Neither Mother nor Father is in compliance with their parental rights and
responsibilities under factor (6). C-----, A------, J---, and J------ are in the custody of
DSCYF due to Mother’s failure and inability to provide for the children’s welfare with
adequate care and nurturing. Further, as discussed above, Mother has failed to
complete her entire case plan for reunification that has been pending for a year and
eight months. As previously mentioned, Mother has never provided any financial
support for the children since they have been in DSCYF custody. She has not obtained
a job. She has also been inconsistent in her visitations with the children throughout the

75
case and has not seen the children since July 11, 2025. Even though the children are in
DSCYF custody, Mother has failed to attend their medical appointments on a consistent
basis.
Father has also failed to display appropriate efforts in completing his case plan.
Aside from the completion of a parenting class and maintaining employment, Father has
failed to obtain and maintain appropriate housing of his own, failed to work with the
family interventionist, declined substance use services recommended to him, and has
not consistently attended the children’s medical, dental, and educational appointments.
Ms. M----- testified that Father has never provided any financial support for the children
since they have been in DSCYF custody. For those reasons, factor (6) supports a
finding that it is in the children’s best interests for Mother’s and Father’s parental rights
to be terminated.
The Court considers the evidence of domestic violence regarding Father against
Mother under factor (7). Father had pending charges for offensive touching regarding
Mother although they were dismissed. Father did not engage in any type of counseling
for domestic violence issues. Therefore, factor (7) weighs in favor of DSCYF’s request
for TPR in the best interest analysis as to Father. There is no evidence of domestic
violence with respect to Mother against Father under factor (7). Accordingly, the Court
finds factor (7) to be a neutral factor in the best interest analysis regarding Mother.
The evidence under factor (8) suggests that both Mother and Father have
criminal histories. Mother’s criminal convictions include criminal impersonation,
endangering the welfare of a child, and failure to reinstate a license. Although Father
has a criminal history, his most recent conviction was in 2017 for Drug Dealing and his

76
charge for Offensive Touching was dismissed. Accordingly, the Court finds that factor
(8) is relevant but not a controlling factor as to both Mother and Father.
Based upon this Court’s analysis and the findings of fact and conclusions of law
set forth herein, the Court finds that it is in the best interests of C-----, A------, J--- and J--
---- to terminate both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights.
CONCLUSION
DSCYF has established clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s parental
rights should be terminated on the grounds stated in 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5) (failure to
plan), and that DSCYF has made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother with C-----, A------
, J---, and J------.
DSCYF has also established by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s
parental rights should be terminated on the grounds stated in 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5)
(failure to plan), and that DSCYF has made reasonable efforts to reunify Father with C--
---, A------, J---, and J------.
The Court further finds clear and convincing evidence under 13 Del. C. § 722 that
it is in C-----’s, A------’s, J---’s, and J------’s best interests to terminate the parental rights
of Mother of Mother and Father.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS DSCYF’s Petition for the Termination and
Transfer of Parental Rights. The parental rights of A----- R----- and J------- M----- are
TERMINATED and/or TRANSFERRED to DSCYF until the children are adopted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/ Michael K. Newell /
MICHAEL K. NEWELL, Chief Judge

77
MKN/md
cc: Victoria Witherell, Esquire
S------ H----, DSCYF
Vernon Vassallo, Esquire
David Holloway, Esquire
J------- F--------, CASA Coordinator
Emily Maguire, Esquire
Date emailed: 12/5/2025