Background
In July 2024, the Division of Family Services investigated an urgent report concerning the welfare of Cedasha Walker’s three children. At the family home, an investigator found the two younger children dirty, smelling of urine and other body odors, and bearing several red marks. The home contained scattered dirty diapers and trash, smelled strongly of feces and urine, and had cockroaches inside the refrigerator. DFS obtained emergency custody, and Walker later stipulated that the children were dependent in her care because she lacked adequate housing.
During the next eleven months, Walker made little progress on her reunification plan. Her housing deteriorated, she acknowledged daily illegal drug use but did not engage in offered treatment, she did not attend mental-health treatment or complete the required parenting course, and she missed some visits with the children. After the Family Court approved changing the permanency goal to termination of parental rights, Walker consented to termination at the September 2025 hearing but revoked that consent within the statutory period. Based on evidence presented at the hearing, the Family Court terminated her parental rights for failure to plan and found termination to be in the children’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. After independently reviewing the record under Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c), the court held that the Family Court’s factual findings were supported by the record and discerned no error in its application of the law to those facts.
The court concluded that Walker’s appeal was wholly without merit and presented no arguably appealable issues. It also found that her counsel had conscientiously examined the record and governing law before determining that no meritorious appellate claim existed. Because the judgment was affirmed, counsel’s motion to withdraw was moot.
Key Takeaways
- The record supported the Family Court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Walker failed to plan adequately for her children during approximately fourteen months of DFS custody.
- The Supreme Court found no error in the determinations that DFS made reasonable reunification efforts and that termination served the children’s best interests.
- Walker’s timely revocation of consent required the Family Court to decide the petition on the evidence supporting failure to plan rather than on consent alone.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the importance of developing a full evidentiary record even when a parent initially consents to termination, because Delaware law permits timely revocation of that consent. Here, the evidence independently supported termination on the statutory failure-to-plan ground.
It also shows the Delaware Supreme Court’s review process when appointed counsel concludes that a termination-of-parental-rights appeal presents no arguable issue: the court independently examines the record before affirming and determining that counsel fulfilled the required conscientious-review obligation.