Summary
This Delaware Supreme Court order affirms the Family Court’s termination of Carl Ross’s parental rights regarding his daughter, who requires extensive medical care. After reviewing the record and the appellant’s counsel’s no-merit brief under Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c), the Court determined that the state agency met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Ross failed to adequately plan for the child’s physical and developmental needs. Concluding that the appeal lacked merit, the Court upheld the lower court’s best-interest determination and affirmed the termination of parental rights.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Family Court erred in terminating the father's parental rights under Delaware statutory grounds.
Holdings
- The Family Court did not err; the termination of Carl Ross's parental rights is affirmed.
Key quotations
“We therefore conclude that Father’s appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issues.” (at 9)
Factual background
Father Carl Ross was ordered to terminate his parental rights after a series of hearings revealed he failed to complete a case plan requiring substance‑abuse treatment, parenting classes, stable employment, housing, and management of his daughter's complex medical needs. The child remained in DFS custody and was placed in foster care.
Procedural history
The Family Court terminated the parental rights of Carl Ross after finding his failure to plan and lack of stable employment, housing, and ability to care for the child's complex medical needs. Ross appealed the termination.