4 A.3d 421 (Del.Fam.Ct. 2009), CS93-4139, Night v. Birch

Docket Nº:CS93-4139.
Citation:4 A.3d 421
Opinion Judge:HENRIKSEN, J.
Party Name: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].
Attorney: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, Georgeto...
Case Date:September 17, 2009
Court:Family Court of Delaware
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 421

4 A.3d 421 (Del.Fam.Ct. 2009)

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].

No. CS93-4139.

Family Court of Delaware, Sussex County.

September 17, 2009

Submitted: Aug. 26, 2009.

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).

OPINION

HENRIKSEN, J.

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

Page 422

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP