IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TAYLOR PEETA,1 § § No. 159, 2018 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File No. CK17-01060 JENNY BLANK, § § Petition Nos. 17-01323 Petitioner Below, § 17-08941 Appellee. §
Submitted: January 11, 2019 Decided: March 15, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to
the Court that:
(1) The respondent below-appellant, Taylor Peeta (“the Mother”), filed an
appeal from the Family Court’s order, dated February 8, 2018, granting the petition
for permanent guardianship filed by the petitioner below-appellee, Jenny Blank (“the
Paternal Grandmother”). Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no error or
abuse of the discretion in the Family Court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the
Family Court’s judgment.
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the appellants under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). (2) The Mother and the Paternal Grandmother’s son (“the Father”) were
the parents of a son born in 2005 (“the Child”). The Child lived with the Father.
After the Father died in late 2016, the Child moved to live with his paternal
grandparents. Paternal Grandmother filed, along with her daughter, a petition for
permanent guardianship of the Child. The Family Court ordered A Better Chance
for Our Children to prepare a social study under 13 Del. C. § 2354.
(3) The Mother opposed permanent guardianship, but did not oppose a
temporary guardianship while she was incarcerated. Counsel was appointed to
represent the Mother. The Mother filed a pro se motion to dismiss the petition for
permanent guardianship, petition for custody, motion for ineffective assistance of
counsel, and a petition to change venue. The Family Court denied all of these
motions.
(4) The Family Court held a hearing on the petition for permanent
guardianship on January 11, 2018. The aunt was removed from the petition for
permanent guardianship. The aunt, the Paternal Grandmother, a counselor from the
Child’s school, an employee of A Better Chance for Our Children, and the Mother
testified at the hearing. The Family Court also interviewed the Child separately.
(5) The aunt and the Paternal Grandmother testified that the Father had
raised the Child as a single parent. They helped the Father, who moved to live near
the Paternal Grandmother three years before his death, care for the Child. After the
2 Father died, the Child moved in with his grandparents. The aunt and Paternal
Grandmother testified that before the Father died the Mother had little involvement
in the Child’s life and had not paid any child support. The Child spent time with the
Mother’s other children (who did not live with her) and continued to do so after the
Father’s death.
(6) The school counselor testified that the Child was a special needs student
who had made good progress since coming to the school. The school did not know
the Mother was alive until recently because the Child had told everyone that she was
dead. The employee from A Better Chance for Our Children testified about her
investigation, which included interviews of the Child and paternal grandparents, a
telephone call with the Mother (who was supposed to call again but did not do so)
criminal background checks, and reference checks. The employee recommended
granting of the petition for permanent guardianship because the Mother was
incarcerated and unlikely to assume care of the Child in the near future, the Child
expressed a strong desire to stay with his grandparents, and his grandparents could
provide him with a good home.
(7) The Mother testified that she began serving a seven-year sentence for
distribution of cocaine in March 2016. Based on her completion of various programs
and receipt of good time and Maryland parole rules, she expected to receive
probation or parole as early as April 2018. The Mother opposed permanent
3 guardianship because she would be released from jail soon and she and the Father
had shared custody of the Child, with the Child seeing the Mother every weekend,
until she was incarcerated. She also testified that she spoke with the Child on the
telephone three or four times a week while the Father was alive, but that the Paternal
Grandmother was not letting her speak with the Child on the telephone. She said
she was never asked to provide child support, but she took care of the Child when
he was with her.
(8) In his interview with the Family Court judge, the Child said he would
see the Mother once every six months or so while he lived with the Father. The
Father told him he could see the Mother every month, but he did not want to. When
he lived with the Father, he did not speak to the Mother on the telephone because
she never called. The Child said he wanted to live with his grandparents and if
something happened to them, then he wanted to live with his aunt.
(9) In an order dated February 8, 2018, the Family Court granted the
petition for permanent guardianship. Applying 13 Del. C. § 2353,2 the Family Court
found by clear and convincing evidence that the one of the grounds for termination
2 This section provides that the Family Court shall grant permanent guardianship if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (i) one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights has been met; (ii) adoption is not possible or appropriate; (iii) permanent guardianship is in the best interests of the child; and (iv) the proposed permanent guardian is emotionally, mentally, physically and financially suitable, has cared for the child for at least six months or is a relative, has committed to remain the permanent guardian, and has demonstrated an understanding of the financial implications of becoming a permanent guardian.
4 of parental rights under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a) had been met. The Mother had failed
to plan adequately for the Child’s physical, mental, emotional health and
development, the Child had resided in the home of a relative for at least a year, the
Mother was incapable of discharging her parental responsibilities, and there was
little likelihood that the Mother would be able to discharge those responsibilities in
the future. The Family Court also found that adoption was not appropriate, the best
interest factors under 13 Del. C. § 722 weighed in favor of permanent guardianship,
and the Paternal Grandmother satisfied the criteria for a permanent guardianship.
(10) This appeal followed. On appeal, this Court reviews the Family Court’s
factual and legal determinations as well as its inferences and deductions.3 We will
not disturb the Family Court’s rulings on appeal if the court’s findings of fact are
supported by the record and its explanations, deductions, and inferences are the
product of an orderly and logical reasoning process.4 We review legal rulings de
novo.5 If the Family Court correctly applied the law, then our standard of review is
abuse of discretion.6 On issues of witness credibility, we will not substitute our
judgment for that of the trier of fact.7
3 Long v. Div. of Family Servs., 41 A.3d 367, 370 (Del. 2012). 4 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 5 Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TAYLOR PEETA,1 § § No. 159, 2018 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File No. CK17-01060 JENNY BLANK, § § Petition Nos. 17-01323 Petitioner Below, § 17-08941 Appellee. §
Submitted: January 11, 2019 Decided: March 15, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to
the Court that:
(1) The respondent below-appellant, Taylor Peeta (“the Mother”), filed an
appeal from the Family Court’s order, dated February 8, 2018, granting the petition
for permanent guardianship filed by the petitioner below-appellee, Jenny Blank (“the
Paternal Grandmother”). Having carefully reviewed the record, we find no error or
abuse of the discretion in the Family Court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the
Family Court’s judgment.
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the appellants under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). (2) The Mother and the Paternal Grandmother’s son (“the Father”) were
the parents of a son born in 2005 (“the Child”). The Child lived with the Father.
After the Father died in late 2016, the Child moved to live with his paternal
grandparents. Paternal Grandmother filed, along with her daughter, a petition for
permanent guardianship of the Child. The Family Court ordered A Better Chance
for Our Children to prepare a social study under 13 Del. C. § 2354.
(3) The Mother opposed permanent guardianship, but did not oppose a
temporary guardianship while she was incarcerated. Counsel was appointed to
represent the Mother. The Mother filed a pro se motion to dismiss the petition for
permanent guardianship, petition for custody, motion for ineffective assistance of
counsel, and a petition to change venue. The Family Court denied all of these
motions.
(4) The Family Court held a hearing on the petition for permanent
guardianship on January 11, 2018. The aunt was removed from the petition for
permanent guardianship. The aunt, the Paternal Grandmother, a counselor from the
Child’s school, an employee of A Better Chance for Our Children, and the Mother
testified at the hearing. The Family Court also interviewed the Child separately.
(5) The aunt and the Paternal Grandmother testified that the Father had
raised the Child as a single parent. They helped the Father, who moved to live near
the Paternal Grandmother three years before his death, care for the Child. After the
2 Father died, the Child moved in with his grandparents. The aunt and Paternal
Grandmother testified that before the Father died the Mother had little involvement
in the Child’s life and had not paid any child support. The Child spent time with the
Mother’s other children (who did not live with her) and continued to do so after the
Father’s death.
(6) The school counselor testified that the Child was a special needs student
who had made good progress since coming to the school. The school did not know
the Mother was alive until recently because the Child had told everyone that she was
dead. The employee from A Better Chance for Our Children testified about her
investigation, which included interviews of the Child and paternal grandparents, a
telephone call with the Mother (who was supposed to call again but did not do so)
criminal background checks, and reference checks. The employee recommended
granting of the petition for permanent guardianship because the Mother was
incarcerated and unlikely to assume care of the Child in the near future, the Child
expressed a strong desire to stay with his grandparents, and his grandparents could
provide him with a good home.
(7) The Mother testified that she began serving a seven-year sentence for
distribution of cocaine in March 2016. Based on her completion of various programs
and receipt of good time and Maryland parole rules, she expected to receive
probation or parole as early as April 2018. The Mother opposed permanent
3 guardianship because she would be released from jail soon and she and the Father
had shared custody of the Child, with the Child seeing the Mother every weekend,
until she was incarcerated. She also testified that she spoke with the Child on the
telephone three or four times a week while the Father was alive, but that the Paternal
Grandmother was not letting her speak with the Child on the telephone. She said
she was never asked to provide child support, but she took care of the Child when
he was with her.
(8) In his interview with the Family Court judge, the Child said he would
see the Mother once every six months or so while he lived with the Father. The
Father told him he could see the Mother every month, but he did not want to. When
he lived with the Father, he did not speak to the Mother on the telephone because
she never called. The Child said he wanted to live with his grandparents and if
something happened to them, then he wanted to live with his aunt.
(9) In an order dated February 8, 2018, the Family Court granted the
petition for permanent guardianship. Applying 13 Del. C. § 2353,2 the Family Court
found by clear and convincing evidence that the one of the grounds for termination
2 This section provides that the Family Court shall grant permanent guardianship if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (i) one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights has been met; (ii) adoption is not possible or appropriate; (iii) permanent guardianship is in the best interests of the child; and (iv) the proposed permanent guardian is emotionally, mentally, physically and financially suitable, has cared for the child for at least six months or is a relative, has committed to remain the permanent guardian, and has demonstrated an understanding of the financial implications of becoming a permanent guardian.
4 of parental rights under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a) had been met. The Mother had failed
to plan adequately for the Child’s physical, mental, emotional health and
development, the Child had resided in the home of a relative for at least a year, the
Mother was incapable of discharging her parental responsibilities, and there was
little likelihood that the Mother would be able to discharge those responsibilities in
the future. The Family Court also found that adoption was not appropriate, the best
interest factors under 13 Del. C. § 722 weighed in favor of permanent guardianship,
and the Paternal Grandmother satisfied the criteria for a permanent guardianship.
(10) This appeal followed. On appeal, this Court reviews the Family Court’s
factual and legal determinations as well as its inferences and deductions.3 We will
not disturb the Family Court’s rulings on appeal if the court’s findings of fact are
supported by the record and its explanations, deductions, and inferences are the
product of an orderly and logical reasoning process.4 We review legal rulings de
novo.5 If the Family Court correctly applied the law, then our standard of review is
abuse of discretion.6 On issues of witness credibility, we will not substitute our
judgment for that of the trier of fact.7
3 Long v. Div. of Family Servs., 41 A.3d 367, 370 (Del. 2012). 4 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 5 Id. 6 CASA v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 834 A.2d 63, 66 (Del. 2003). 7 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 5 (11) The Mother’s arguments on appeal may be summarized as follows: (i)
there were factual mistakes in the Family Court order; (ii) the paternal relatives
brainwashed the Child, manipulated the school counselor, prevented her from
contacting the Child by telephone or mail, and ignored her wishes for the Child to
receive counseling outside of the school; (iii) the aunt was not a credible witness;
(iv) the status of her nine other children was irrelevant because five of them were
the age of majority and four of them lived with other relatives because she was
incarcerated; (v) she and the Father shared childcare responsibilities before the
Father died; and (vi) her counsel was ineffective.
(12) After careful consideration of the parties’ positions and the record on
appeal, we conclude that the judgment of the Family Court should be affirmed on
the basis of, and for the reasons stated, in the Family Court’s thorough and well-
reasoned order dated February 8, 2018. The factual mistakes identified by the
Mother (the Child’s birth date, which was correctly listed in the caption, the date of
the permanent guardianship petition, and the Child’s age upon the completion of the
Mother’s prison sentence) were not material to the Family Court’s decision. As to
the Mother’s attacks on the other witnesses and her contention that she shared joint
responsibility for the Child before the Father died, we will not substitute our opinion
for that of the Family Court when the determination of facts turns on a question of
credibility and the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of witnesses before the
6 Family Court.8 It was within the Family Court’s discretion to determine that the
Child and paternal relatives were more credible than the Mother. To the extent the
Mother claims that her counsel’s ineffectiveness led to the granting of the petition
for permanent guardianship, the record does not support that claim. The February
8, 2018 order reflects that the Family Court carefully reviewed the evidence, made
factual findings, and applied the correct legal standard in deciding to grant the
Paternal Grandmother’s petition for permanent guardianship.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Chief Justice
8 See supra n.7.