Storm v. DSCYF TPR

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 242, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALEX STORM,1 § § No. 242, 2025 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File Nos. 24-02-07TN DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES § CN13-03262 FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND § THEIR FAMILIES, DIVISION OF § Petition Nos. 24-03280 FAMILY SERVICES, § 23-20260 § Petitioner Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: October 13, 2025 Decided: October 31, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the no-merit brief and the motion to withdraw filed by

the appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c), the responses, and the

Family Court record, it appears to the Court that:

(1) By order dated May 13, 2025, the Family Court terminated the parental

rights of the appellant, Alex Storm (“Father”), with respect to his daughter, born in

November 2018 (the “Child”). Father appeals.

1 The Court previously assigned a pseudonym to the appellant under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). (2) On appeal, Father’s counsel filed an opening brief and a motion to

withdraw under Rule 26.1(c). Counsel asserts that she conducted a conscientious

review of the record and the relevant law and determined that Father’s appeal is

wholly without merit. Counsel informed Father of the provisions of Rule 26.1(c),

provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief,

and advised him that he could submit in writing any additional points that he wished

for the Court to consider. Father submitted points for the Court’s consideration. The

Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, Division

of Family Services (“DFS”) as the appellee and the Child’s attorney have responded

to counsel’s Rule 26.1(c) brief and argue that the Family Court’s judgment should

be affirmed.

(3) Before her death in 2019, the Child’s mother (“Mother”) consented to

her mother (“Maternal Grandmother”) having guardianship of the Child and her

siblings. Mother provided Father’s name, but his name did not appear on the Child’s

birth certificate and his paternity was not established in the guardianship proceeding.

On September 22, 2023, DFS petitioned for emergency custody of the Child because

there were reports of Maternal Grandmother physically abusing one of the Child’s

siblings. Father’s whereabouts were unknown, and Maternal Grandmother refused

to provide his contact information. The Family Court granted the petition.

2 (4) With the filing of DFS’s dependency-and-neglect petition, the

mandated hearings ensued.2 At the preliminary protective hearing, the Family Court

found that there was probable cause to believe the Child was dependent due to the

abuse allegations against Maternal Grandmother, Mother’s death, and the unknown

whereabouts of Father. The court also found that DFS had made reasonable efforts

to prevent the unnecessary removal of the Child from the home. The court rescinded

the Maternal Grandmother’s guardianship.

(5) At the adjudicatory hearing, evidence was presented that the Child was

doing well in foster care, but there were concerns that the Child had speech and

cognitive delays. The foster mother had been appointed the Child’s Educational

Surrogate Parent. The Family Court found that the Child remained dependent as to

Father, whose whereabouts remained unknown, and deceased Mother. The court

ordered the accomplishment of service on Father through publication on the Family

Court website. On November 6, 2023, Father was served with DFS’s custody

petition by publication on the Family Court website.

(6) At the dispositional hearing, the Family Court found that the Child

remained dependent, and that DFS was making reasonable efforts toward the

2 When DFS obtains custody of a child, the Family Court is required to hold hearings at regular intervals under procedures and criteria detailed by statute and the court’s rules. 13 Del. C. § 2514; Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. Proc. R. 212-219. 3 permanency plan of reunification. No case plan was created for Father because DFS

had been unable to contact him.

(7) On January 23, 2024, DFS moved to change the permanency plan to

termination of parental rights (“TPR”) and adoption. DFS argued that Father’s

paternity had not been established, DFS had been unable to contact him, and Father

had failed to participate in the previous proceedings for the Child. The Family Court

granted the motion. At the February 6, 2024 review hearing, evidence was presented

that the Child continued to do well with her foster family, an adoptive resource for

the Child. The Family Court adopted DFS’s care plan for the Child, which reflected

that the Child had been diagnosed with anemia, developmental delay, chromosomal

microduplication, and urinary incontinence.

(8) On February 13, 2024, DFS filed a petition for termination of Father’s

parental rights based on intentional abandonment under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(2),

unintentional abandonment under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(3), and failure to plan under

13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5). Because Father’s paternity had not been determined, DFS

also sought termination of an unknown father’s parental rights. A hearing on the

petition was scheduled for May 28, 2024.

(9) At a May 2, 2024 review hearing, the DFS permanency worker testified

that she received a voice mail from Father during the hearing. Otherwise, the Child

4 continued to do well with her foster family. The Child had recently been diagnosed

with autism.

(10) Shortly after the review hearing, Father communicated with DFS for

the first time. He claimed that he had been unaware the Child was in DFS custody

and that Maternal Grandmother had provided inaccurate contact information for

him. Father wanted the Child in his care. Based on Father’s contact, DFS moved

for paternity testing. The Family Court granted the motion and cancelled the May

28, 2024 hearing. Paternity testing established Father’s paternity of the Child. The

Family Court appointed counsel to represent Father and scheduled a permanency

hearing for November 1, 2024.

(11) At the November 1, 2024 hearing, Father testified that he never had

custody of the Child. He, Mother, and Maternal Grandmother agreed shortly after

the Child’s birth that Maternal Grandmother would care for her until he and Mother

could do so. Mother subsequently died, and Father visited the Child every few

weeks. Maternal Grandmother rejected Father’s request for custody of the Child in

2020. He did not file for custody at that time because he did not want to cause

Maternal Grandmother stress and he believed they could work things out.

(12) Father continued visiting the Child until approximately March 2022

when Maternal Grandmother stopped responding to his texts and calls. He again did

not seek custody of the Child, testifying that he was unable to work due to a

5 workplace injury, lost his car and housing, and developed a drinking problem.

Father entered substance abuse treatment in August 2023.

(13) Father learned from Maternal Grandmother in October 2023 that the

Child was in DFS custody. He gave his contact information to Maternal

Grandmother. Based on his conversation with Maternal Grandmother, Father

thought the Child would be back in the Maternal Grandmother’s care shortly. He

did not contact DFS or file anything in the Family Court. In May 2024, DFS

contacted Father’s sister, who informed Father.

(14) Father testified that he was employed and provided pay stubs from

September and October 2024. The pay stubs reflected an address where Father

claimed he had not lived since 2022 and where notice of the TPR petition was sent.

Father also provided a copy of the lease for where he was living in Pennsylvania.

Father indicated that he was willing to case plan with DFS.

(15) The DFS permanency worker testified that weekly Zoom visits between

the Child and Father were scheduled once Father’s paternity was established. Father

attended three visits, but missed seven visits. The Child struggled with the Zoom

visits, having meltdowns when Father failed to appear and appearing uncomfortable

when the visits occurred. DFS had been unable to initiate the Interstate Compact on

the Placement of Children (“ICPC”) process until recently because Father had not

provided his housing information. The Child was doing well with her foster family,

6 and DFS wished to proceed with termination of Father’s parental rights. The Family

Court denied Father’s request to change the permanency goal to reunification, but

ordered DFS to case plan with Father. A TPR hearing was originally scheduled for

March 3, 2025, but was rescheduled for May 13, 2025.

(16) At the TPR hearing, the Family Court heard testimony from the DFS

permanency worker, the Child’s foster mother, and Father. Documentary evidence

included the orders in the dependency proceeding. Father had not visited the Child

since an in-person visit on November 15, 2024. The Child was very upset before

the visit, but was fine during the visit. Father did not communicate with the

permanency worker between December 13, 2024 and May 12, 2025. In March, the

permanency worker was informed that Pennsylvania had closed the ICPC matter

because Father was uncooperative and unemployed.

(17) The permanency worker wished to prepare a case plan with Father, but

after he stopped communicating with her, she prepared and sent a case plan to Father

in January. The case plan required Father to: (i) complete a substance abuse

evaluation and follow all recommended treatments; (ii) complete a mental health

evaluation and follow any recommendations; (iii) engage in meaningful visitation

with the Child; (iv) obtain and maintain stable employment and housing as well as

cooperate with the ICPC process; and (v) comply with the terms of his probation in

Pennsylvania.

7 (18) Father told DFS that he had completed substance abuse treatment and

provided a certificate of completion, but DFS was unable to verify this information.

Substance abuse treatment was a component of Father’s probation for DUI and

traffic offenses he committed in November 2021 and pleaded guilty to in October

2022. Continuation of mental health treatment was also a component of Father’s

probation. DFS did not receive any documentation from Father concerning his

mental health treatment. During the hearing, a substance abuse evaluation

performed in March 2024 and a mental health evaluation performed in March 2025

were admitted into evidence. The substance abuse evaluation did not recommend

further treatment. As to the mental health evaluation, Father had engaged in weekly

counseling since March.

(19) The permanency worker testified that Father never asked her how the

Child was doing or attended any of the Child’s medical appointments. He had not

provided any pay stubs to DFS since the November hearing or provided any

information about the status of his probation. Father’s pay stubs from a job he held

in November were admitted into evidence. The permanency worker had a copy of

Father’s lease, but no home assessment was completed during the ICPC process.

DFS had concerns about domestic violence because Father’s Pennsylvania criminal

records, which DFS did not have until after preparation of the case plan, showed that

Father pleaded guilty to harassment of his ex-girlfriend in 2024.

8 (20) The Child was doing well in foster care and wanted to stay with her

foster family. The foster mother testified that the Child did not mention Father

before the Zoom visits and did not ask about him after the in-person visit. Father

never asked the foster mother about how the Child was doing. The foster family

wanted to adopt the Child.

(21) Father testified that he had been sober for more than 600 days. He lost

his job in December, but had started a new, full-time job the day before the hearing.

He was living in the same apartment that he lived in at the time of the last hearing.

At one point in time he was behind on his rent, but his sister helped him pay it off.

He understood from the ICPC worker that no home assessment would be done until

he was employed and that a home assessment would be done now that he was

employed. According to Father, his probation would end in December.

(22) As to visitation with the Child, Father testified that he stopped doing

Zoom visits because they upset the Child. He acknowledged that he was offered in-

person visitation, but claimed he had car problems in January that prevented him

from coming to Delaware. He did not inform DFS that he was having transportation

issues. Father testified that Maternal Grandmother deprived him of the opportunity

to parent the Child but admitted that he did not pursue any court action. At the end

of the hearing, the Family Court terminated Father’s parental rights on the grounds

9 of unintentional abandonment under Section 1103(a)(3) and failure to plan under

Section 1103(a)(5).

(23) This Court’s review of the Family Court’s decision to terminate

parental rights entails consideration of the facts and the law as well as the inferences

and deductions made by the Family Court.3 We review legal rulings de novo.4 We

conduct a limited review of the factual findings of the trial court to assure that they

are sufficiently supported by the record and are not clearly wrong.5 If the trial judge

has correctly applied the law, then our standard of review is limited to abuse of

discretion.6

(24) The statutory framework under which the Family Court may terminate

parental rights requires two separate inquiries.7 First, the court must determine

whether the evidence presented meets one of the statutory grounds for termination.8

Second, if the Family Court finds a statutory basis for termination of parental rights,

the court must determine whether, under 13 Del. C. § 722, severing parental rights

is in the child’s best interest.9 Both of these requirements must be established by

clear and convincing evidence.10

3 Wilson v. Div. of Family Servs., 988 A.2d 435, 439-40 (Del. 2010). 4 Id. at 440. 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000). 8 Id. at 537. 9 Shepherd, 752 A.2d at 537. 10 Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008). 10 (25) Here, the Family Court found that Father unintentionally abandoned the

Child by failing to do all of the following for at least twelve consecutive months of

the eighteen months preceding the filing of the TPR petition on February 12, 2024:

(i) communicate with or regularly visit the Child beginning in March 2022; (ii) file

a petition to establish paternity or a legal right to have contact or visitation with the

Child; and (iii) manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical

custody of the Child.11 Although the court did not perform a complete analysis of

whether additional evidence of unintentional abandonment existed under Section

1103(a)(3)(b),12 the record reflects that the Child was not in the other parent’s

custody and Father was unable to assume legal and physical custody of the Child

promptly and pay reasonable support for the child as set forth in Section

1103(a)(3)(b)(1). The Child was in DFS custody, Father had barely seen the Child

since March 2022, Father had only recently obtained full-time employment, and the

ICPC process, including an assessment of Father’s home, was incomplete.

(26) The court also found that Father failed to plan for the Child’s needs and

that the Child had been in DFS custody for more than one year.13 The court

recognized that Father had completed some elements of his case plan but emphasized

that Father had failed to engage in meaningful visitation with the Child. Despite not

11 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(3)(a) (listing the elements of unintentional abandonment). 12 Id. § 1103(b) (listing the additional grounds required for a finding of unintentional abandonment) 13 Id. § 1103(a)(5) (defining the elements of failure to plan). 11 seeing the Child between March 2022 and August 2024 and desiring custody of the

Child, Father did only one in-person visit and a few Zoom visits with the Child

between September 2024 and November 15, 2024. Father had no contact with the

Child after November 15, 2024.

(27) Considering the best interest factors,14 the court found that factors two

(the child’s wishes), three (the child’s relationship with her parents and relatives),

four (the child’s adjustment to home, school, and the community), and six (the

parents’ past and presence compliance with their rights and responsibilities to the

child) carried the greatest weight. The record demonstrated that the Child was doing

well with her foster family and wished to stay there, she had no relationship with

Father and had strong bonds with her foster family, and Father had not met his

parental responsibilities since at least March 2022. The court concluded that

termination of the Father’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interests. The

Family Court’s written order reflects that it made the necessary findings by clear and

convincing evidence.

(28) In the points that Father has submitted for the Court’s consideration, he

states that he visited the Child and bought her clothing and other essentials while she

was in the care of her Maternal Grandmother. He claims that he could not seek

14 Id. § 1103(a) (providing that parental rights may be terminated if one of several statutory grounds is established and termination “appears to be in the child’s best interest”); id. § 722 (setting forth factors that the court may consider when determining the best interests of a child). 12 custody of the Child after Maternal Grandmother rejected his request for custody in

2020 because “the courts were closed for many years due to Covid.”15 Father also

contends that he did not have a fair shot in court to maintain his parental rights.

(29) Notwithstanding Father’s claims, it is undisputed that the Child was

never in Father’s custody and that he had no contact with the Child for more than

two years. Father submitted no evidence in the Family Court showing that he ever

financially supported the Child. As to Father’s assertion that he could not seek

custody of the Child while the Family Court was closed due to COVID-19, the public

could submit filings to the Family Court throughout the pandemic16 and courthouses

reopened to the public on June 15, 2020.17 Finally, Father had a fair opportunity to

maintain his parental rights. Even though Father knew in October 2023 that the

Child was in DFS custody and took no action until May 2024, he had the opportunity

to complete a case plan and demonstrate that he could meet the Child’s needs. Father

failed to do so, discontinuing contact with DFS and choosing not to see the Child for

six months.

(30) Having carefully reviewed the parties’ positions and the record on

appeal, we hold that the Family Court’s factual findings are supported by the record,

15 Rule 26.1(c) Br. at 15-16. 16 See Administrative Order No. 3 (Mar. 22, 2020) (closing courthouses to the public, but requiring the courts to provide a method, such as a drop box, email address, or mailing address for the public to fill out and file documents). 17 See Administrative Order No. 7 (June 5, 2020) (providing that courthouses would reopen on June 15, 2020). 13 and we can discern no error in the court’s application of the law to the facts. We

therefore conclude that Father’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any

arguably appealable issues. We are satisfied that Father’s counsel made a

conscientious effort to examine the record and the law and properly determined that

Father could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court be AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice