Walsh v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 20, 2025
• Docket: 513, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

AVA WALSH,1 § § No. 513, 2024 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File Nos. 24-02-2TK DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES § CK23-01966 FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND § THEIR FAMILIES, § Petition Nos. 24-03342 § 23-12492 Petitioner Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: May 12, 2025 Decided: May 20, 2025

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

ORDER

After consideration of appellant’s brief and 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) The appellant, Ava Walsh (“Mother”), is the mother of a son, born in

June 2023 (the “Child”). On June 14, 2023, the Delaware Department of Services

for Children, Youth and Their Families (“DSCYF”) petitioned the Family Court for

1 The Court previously assigned a pseudonym to the appellant under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). emergency custody of the Child because the Child had tested positive for marijuana

at birth, DSCYF had concerns about Mother’s mental health, and Mother had two

other children in DSCYF’s custody. Between June 2023 and September 2024, the

Family Court held the mandated hearings.2 In February 2024, DSCYF moved to

terminate Mother’s parental rights based on her failure to plan for the Child’s

physical needs or mental and emotional health and development.

(2) Following an evidentiary hearing on October 21, 2024,3 which Mother

failed to attend, the Family Court issued a written decision terminating Mother’s

parental rights in the Child.4 The Family Court found that DSCYF had proved, by

clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was

appropriate based on her failure to plan adequately for the Child’s physical needs or

mental and emotional health and development5 and that the Child, who came into

DSCYF’s custody as an infant, had been in DSCYF’s custody for more than six

months.6 Last, the Family Court examined the best-interests factors set out in 13

2 When a child is removed from his home by DSCYF and placed in foster care, 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 The termination-of-parental-rights hearing was originally scheduled for September 4, 2024, but was continued at DSCYF’s request. 4 The Family Court also terminated the parental rights of the Child’s father. He is not a party to this appeal. 5 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5). 6 Id. § 1103(a)(5)(b). 2 Del. C. § 722 and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of

Mother’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals.

(3) On appeal, Mother’s counsel has filed an opening brief and a motion to

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

review of the record and the relevant law and has determined that Mother’s appeal

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

provided her with a copy of counsel’s motion to withdraw and the accompanying

brief, and advised her that she could submit in writing any additional points that she

wished for the Court to consider. Mother has not provided any points for the Court’s

consideration. DSCYF as the appellee and the Child’s attorney from the Office of

the Child Advocate have responded to the Rule 26.1(c) brief and argue that the

Family Court’s judgment should be affirmed.

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

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

and we can discern no error in the court’s application of the law to the facts. We

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

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

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

Mother could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.

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

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

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice