Abigail Acorn and Wendall Malic III v. Seth Laymen and Laura Laymen

Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s termination of Abigail Acorn and Wendall Malic III’s parental rights concerning their two children. The Court held that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the parents had failed to plan adequately for the children’s needs and that termination was in the children’s best interests, while declining to consider new claims and an objection to a guardianship ruling outside its jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. A termination-of-parental-rights proceeding requires the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence both a statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child's best interests. The Family Court properly found both requirements satisfied here.
2. The Supreme Court will not consider factual claims or evidence presented for the first time on appeal when those matters were not fairly presented to the trial court.
3. The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the parents' objection to the Family Court's denial of the father's sister's guardianship petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Family Court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that the parents failed to plan adequately for the children's needs under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5).
2. Whether termination of the parents' parental rights was in the children's best interests under 13 Del. C. § 722(a).
3. Whether the Supreme Court could consider the parents' new factual claims regarding housing, employment, support, mental-health treatment, and transportation.
4. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the Family Court's denial of the father's sister's guardianship petition.

Disposition

affirmed