In Re The Matter Of Louise Night, File No. CS93-4139.
| Decision Date | 17 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | Petition No. 07-24326.,File No. CS93-4139. |
| Citation | 4 A.3d 421 |
| Parties | In re the Matter of Louise NIGHT, Movant, v. Colin BIRCH and Division of Family Services, Respondents. In the Interest of Daisy Masterson, DOB: [Redacted]. |
| Court | Delaware Family Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
James Reichert, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, Georgetown, DE, Attorney for the Division of Family Services.
Ashley Oland, Esquire, Law Office of Edward C. Gill, P.A., Georgetown, DE, Attorney for Colin Birch.
Patricia O'Neil, Esquire, Law Office of Patricia M. O'Neil, Esquire, Georgetown, DE, Attorney for Louise Night.
Kristin Gibbons, Esquire, Office of the Child Advocate, Georgetown, DE, Attorney for the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA).
On August 13, 2009, Louise Night, 1 mother, filed a motion requesting that the goal of permanency for the above-named minor child be changed from Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) to Reunification with Mother. To that effect, Mother is seeking to enter into a case plan with the Division of Family Services to assist Mother in her reunification efforts. Father, the Division of Family Services, and the Court appointed special advocate all are opposed to Mother's request.
Mother's motion seeking reunification services from DFS comes more than two years after this child was taken into care on August 03, 2007. Mother first appeared before the Court in these matters at the Adjudicatory Hearing on October 01, 2007. At that time, Mother indicated that she did not desire any efforts at reunification. Mother's desire not to seek reunification efforts remained consistent until a hearing held more than 18 months following the Adjudicatory Hearing, being a hearing held on April 20, 2009, when, for the first time, Mother indicated her willingness to enter into a reunification plan. Mother failed to appear for the next hearing, scheduled on an emergency basis on June 15, 2009, when the goal for this child was changed from reunification to APPLA. Despite Mother's lack of participation over this lengthy period of time, the child's father was always involved, sought reunification, but finally conceded that reunification at this time in this child's mentally delicate life, was not in his child's best interest.
Father has opposed Mother's request for reunification efforts at this time based upon Mother's lack of participation over the past two years, and because he believes that reunification by Mother with the child at this time would not be in the child's best interest. The Division, likewise opposes Mother's request based upon her lengthy lack of previous interest. The Division's response also noted that Mother failed to appear at the Permanency Hearing held on June 15, 2009. Despite Mother's lack of appearance, Father, through counsel, consented to the change of goal to APPLA. The CASA's response also notes Mother's lengthy lack of prior efforts. The CASA expresses its opinion that “parents in these cases do not get unlimited time to decide whether they want reunification and thus have services offered to them by DFS to accomplish that.”
Indeed, the CASA's theory is specifically set forth in an amendment to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Section 442 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 629(b)) was amended to redefine reunification services from community-based support services to “community-based family support services, time-limited family reunification...
To continue reading
Request your trial