Background
DSCYF had been involved with the mother, Allice Rooten, for years before the events prompting removal, having opened a treatment case just before her son Jason was born substance-exposed in 2020. In February 2024, a social worker observed a severe burn on the chest of Rooten’s son Alexander and learned that Rooten had treated the injury herself rather than seeking medical attention. DSCYF obtained emergency custody of all four boys — Conner (born 2015), Alexander (born 2018), Jason (born 2020), and Jackson (born 2021) — that same evening. At a contested adjudicatory hearing in April 2024, the Family Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were dependent, neglected, or abused in Rooten’s care, citing her failure to seek medical treatment for Alexander’s burn, her neglect of routine medical and dental needs across all four children, and chronic school absences for the two older boys.
The Family Court adopted a reunification case plan requiring Rooten to complete a parenting course and work with a family interventionist, undergo substance-abuse and mental-health evaluations and follow all recommendations, obtain stable income, and cooperate with the children’s medical and educational needs. Over the following year and a half, hearings documented incremental and incomplete compliance: Rooten initially submitted a parenting certificate from ten years prior, tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and MDMA on multiple occasions between August and November 2024, failed to enroll in the detox program recommended by her mental health evaluator, and repeatedly missed visits with the children. By July 2025, Rooten had stopped visiting the children entirely, telling them she would not travel to Kent County because it would negatively affect her mental health — a disclosure that caused her son Conner to blame himself for being placed “too far” from her.
DSCYF petitioned to terminate parental rights in late 2024. After a contested October 2025 TPR hearing generating a 70-page Family Court decision, the court terminated Rooten’s parental rights to all four children based on failure to plan, finding that DSCYF had proved the statutory grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests, both by clear and convincing evidence. Rooten appealed, and her counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw under Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c).
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s termination order in full. After independently reviewing the record, the Court concluded that the Family Court correctly found, by clear and convincing evidence, all necessary statutory predicates for termination based on failure to plan under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5): Rooten had failed to plan for the children’s physical needs and mental and emotional health; the children had been in DSCYF custody for more than six months; DSCYF had previously taken custody of another of Rooten’s children; and Rooten had a history of dependency, neglect, abuse, or lack of care of the children or another child. The Court further found the Family Court’s best-interests determination to be amply supported by the record.
The Court rejected Rooten’s pro se narrative argument that she had completed “everything” on her case plan, finding that record evidence — including her cessation of visitation for the final months before the TPR hearing, her failure to engage with a family interventionist, her persistent substance abuse, and her absence from the children’s medical and educational appointments — more than adequately supported the Family Court’s contrary factual finding. Discerning no legal error and no abuse of discretion, the Court held that the appeal was wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. Counsel’s motion to withdraw was deemed moot upon affirmance.
Key Takeaways
- Under Delaware’s two-step TPR framework, the court must find a statutory ground for termination and at least one additional statutory condition (here, children in custody over six months, prior custody of another child, and a history of neglect), both by clear and convincing evidence, before reaching the best-interests inquiry.
- A parent’s cessation of all visitation in the months preceding a TPR hearing — particularly when an accessible visitation option was available — can be decisive evidence of failure to plan and of the children’s best interests favoring termination.
- Delaware Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c) allows appointed appellate counsel to withdraw upon certifying a conscientious review of the record and law reveals no meritorious appellate issue; the court independently examines the record before granting such a motion.
- A parenting-course certificate completed a decade earlier, predating the children at issue, does not satisfy a case-plan requirement to complete a current parenting course and demonstrate implementation of skills.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Delaware Family Courts and the Supreme Court evaluate cumulative non-compliance in TPR proceedings. Even where a parent shows some progress — Rooten did eventually complete a substance-abuse IOP and a parenting course — sustained failures in critical areas such as ongoing sobriety, financial planning, and most importantly, maintaining the parent-child relationship through visitation, can support termination when the children have been in foster care for an extended period and their need for permanency is pressing.
The case also reinforces the procedural integrity of Delaware’s Rule 26.1(c) no-merit withdrawal procedure in family law appeals. The Court’s independent record review, combined with responses from both DSCYF and the Office of the Child Advocate, provides a meaningful safeguard ensuring that appointed counsel’s professional judgment is tested before a parent’s appellate rights are extinguished.