Div. of Servs. for Children, Youth & Their Families v. R.H.

Full title: DIVISION OF SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES, Petitioner…

Court: FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

Date published: Nov 22, 2019

PETITION NO.: 19-01160 (Del. Fam. Nov. 22, 2019)

Opinion

FILE NO.: 19-01-04TN FILE NO.: CN08-06068 PETITION NO.: 19-01160PETITION NO.: 17-06484 FILE NO.: 19-01-05TN FILE NO.: CN17-02006 PETITION NO.: 19-01178PETITION NO.: 17-06476

11-22-2019

DIVISION OF SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. R----- H----- and T---- S-------, Respondents. DIVISION OF SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. R----- H----- and K------- D--------, Respondents.

JANELL S. OSTROSKI, Judge

CASE HISTORY:
Ex Parte Order: 3/6/2017
PPH Order: 3/20/2017
Adjudicatory Order: 4/12/2017
Dispositional Order: 6/13/2017
1^st Review Order: 8/22/2017
2^nd Review Order: 10/23/2017
3^rd Review Order: 1/8/2018
Permanency Order: 3/13/2018
Post-Permanency Order: 5/30/2018
2^nd Post-Permanency Order: 9/20/2018
3^rd Post-Permanency Order: 12/21/2018
4^th Post-Permanency Order: 5/16/2019 PRESENT FOR THE HEARING
Janice Tigani, Esq., DAG ¹
Naydeen Mayo, DFS ²
Jasmine Johnson, DFS ³
T---- S-------, Mother ⁴
Brian Jordan, Esq., Atty for Mother ⁵
R----- H-----, Father ⁶
Michelle Skoranski, Esq., Atty for Father ⁷ K------- D--------, Mother of S----- ⁸
Shauna Hagan, Esq., Atty of Ms. D-------- ⁹
Thomas Gorman, Esq., Child Atty for the boys ¹⁰
Robert Vrana, Esq., Child Atty for the girls ¹¹
Laura Stork, CFF, for the girls ¹²
Shane Handlin, CFF, for the boys ¹³
Amy Facciolo, CFF ¹⁴
Lynn Moyer, CFF ¹⁵
Kelsey Scharmberg, PBH ¹⁶
Triana Daniels, Wraparound ¹⁷
Allison Randall, Children's Therapist ¹⁸
K---- and C-------- S-----, FP for the girls ¹⁹
D-- and C-------- Leech, S-----'s FP ²⁰
A----- P--------, M----- School ²¹
A--------- P-----, F's brother's ex-girlfriend ²²
M--- S----, Husband of A--------- P----- ²³
E---- H----, Observer ²⁴ TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ORDER

1 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

2 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

3 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

4 Ms. S------- failed to appear for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

5 Appeared for the 9/13/19 hearing only.

6 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

7 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

8 Appeared 2 ½ hours late for the 9/13/19 hearing and appeared 2 hours late for the 10/10/19 hearing.

9 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

10 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

11 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

12 Appeared for the 9/13/19 hearing only.

13 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

14 Appeared for the 9/13/19 hearing only.

15 Appeared for the 9/13/19 hearing only.

16 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

17 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

18 Appeared for the morning of 9/13/19 hearing only.

19 Appeared for the morning of 9/13/19 hearing only.

20 Appeared for the 9/13/19 hearing only.

21 Appeared for the 9/13/19 hearing only.

22 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

23 Appeared for both the 9/13/19 and 10/10/19 hearings.

24 Appeared for the 10/10/19 hearing only.

Pending before the Court is a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights ("TPR") filed by the Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families ("DSCYF"), represented by Janice Tigani, Esquire, against R----- H----- ("Father"), represented by Michelle Skoranski, Esquire, and T---- S-------, represented by Brian Jordan, Esquire, in the interest of C------- H-----, born August --, 20--; A---- H-----, born March --, 20--; and B---- H-----, born February --, 20--.

Also, pending before the Court is a Petition for Termination and Transfer of Parental Rights filed by DSCYF against Father and K------- D--------, represented by Shauna Hagan, Esquire, in the interest of S----- H----- (a.k.a. J----), born March --, 20--.

S----- is represented by Thomas Gorman, Esquire. C-------, A----, and B---- are represented by Robert Vrana, Esquire. At the start of the first day of the hearing, DSCYF withdrew its Petition as it relates to C------- as C------- is now 15 years old and does not wish to be adopted. DSCYF will be taking C-------'s case back to the Permanency Planning Committee for direction as to how to proceed regarding C-------. Mr. Gorman and Mr. Vrana support the TPR as it relates to A----, B----, and S-----. Father and Ms. D-------- oppose the TPR arguing that it is not in the children's best interest to terminate their parental rights. Ms. S------- failed to appear to contest the Petition.

The Court held a hearing over the course of two days beginning on September 13, 2019, and concluding on October 10, 2019. On the first day of the TPR hearing the following individuals testified: Father, Allison Randall (children's therapist), Naydeen Mayo (social worker from DSCYF), and Jasmine Johnson (social worker from DSCYF). On the second day of the TPR hearing, the following individuals testified: M--- S---- (Petitioner in the related Guardianship filed) and A--------- P----- (co-Petitioner in the related Guardianship file). The Petition for Guardianship filed by Mr. S---- and Ms. P----- was consolidated with the second day of the TPR hearing.

The evidence related to the Guardianship hearing was left open to obtain national criminal background checks for the proposed guardians as the Court is required to check their criminal backgrounds pursuant to the best interest analysis and they were not prepared to present their criminal histories from New Jersey. The Court subsequently received the criminal histories on October 25, 2019. Ms. P----- had a conviction for "Simple Assault" in New Jersey. The Court notified the parties on October 30, 2019, that the Court had compared the elements of Simple Assault in New Jersey to Delaware's laws and found that Simple Assault in New Jersey was equivalent to Assault Third in Delaware. The parties were given ten (10) days to object to the Court's decision in that regard. The Court received no objection and closed the evidence on November 12, 2019. An Order denying the Guardianship Petition is being entered simultaneously herewith. As the Court could not make a decision regarding the instant TPR Petition until the decision regarding the Guardianship Petition was made, the evidence in this matter was also closed on November 12, 2019.

During the TPR hearing, the Court took judicial notice of the Court's previous Orders in the dependency/neglect proceedings.²⁵ All of the previous Court Orders were entered into evidence and considered under the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence.²⁶ DSCYF also moved the Social Report into evidence as required by 13 Del. C. § 1105(c).²⁷

25 File Nos.:CN08-06068 / CN17-02006; Pet. Nos.: 12-36449 & 17-06484 / 17-06476

26 DSCYF Exhibit #1 from September 13, 2019.

27 DSCYF Exhibit #2: Social Report dated March 4, 2019, from September 13, 2019.

This is the Court's written Order regarding DSCYF's Petition for Termination of Parental Rights. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS DSCYF's Petition. Pursuant to this Order, the parental rights of T---- S-------, K------- D--------, and R----- H----- are TERMINATED and TRANSFERRED to DSCYF until A----, B----, and S----- are adopted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 8, 2008, Father filed a Petition for Custody against Ms. S------- for all five (5) of their children and alleged that Ms. S------- left him alone with the children. Father was awarded sole custody of the children by default on May 27, 2009. The Court determined Ms. S------- had proper notice by publication as her whereabouts were unknown.

On November 7, 2012, DSCYF filed a Dependency/Neglect Petition for Custody of R-----, C---, C-------, A----, and B----. The same day, the Court entered an Ex Parte Order indicating there was a threat of immediate harm to the health of the children based on the parents' inability to keep their children safe. The Court entered a Preliminary Protective Hearing Order ("PPH") on November 19, 2012, and an Adjudicatory Hearing Order on December 17, 2012. DSCYF provided Father with a Case Plan and his Case Plan was attached to the Dispositional Hearing Order on January 28, 2013. DSCYF indicated a Case Plan would not be created for Ms. S------- until her ICPC with Pennsylvania was approved. Father continued to progress through his Case Plan as indicated in the Review Hearing Order entered on April 16, 2013.

The Court entered a 2^nd Review Hearing Order on July 1, 2013. Father had progressed on his Case Plan and Ms. S-------'s ICPC was closed apparently based on Ms. S-------'s noncompliance. According to the 3^rd Review Hearing Order entered on September 9, 2013, Father had complied with his Case Plan. DSCYF only needed Father to complete a new budget since the children had been placed with him. Finally, in the Permanency Hearing Order on December 23, 2013, the Court found that Father completed his Case Plan and the children were no longer dependent as to him. Father was awarded sole custody as Ms. S------- had no contact with DSCYF.

On March 6, 2017, DSCYF filed another Dependency/Neglect Petition for Custody of R-----, C---, C-------, A----, and B----. At this time, Father was in a relationship with Ms. D-------- and they also had a child together, S----- (a.k.a. J----). DSCYF filed a Dependency/Neglect Petition for Custody of S----- as well. The same day, the Court entered an Ex Parte Order on both Petitions indicating the children were left with inappropriate adult caretakers and the parents' whereabouts were unknown.

The Court entered a Preliminary Protective Hearing Order ("PPH") on March 15, 2017. Ms. D-------- and Father stipulated to probable cause that the children were dependent based on their inability to provide appropriate housing. Ms. S------- did not appear in person or by telephone despite the Court's attempt to reach her by phone. The Court formally appointed Michelle Skoranski, Esquire, to represent Father and Shauna Hagan, Esquire, to represent Ms. D--------. The Court found that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the children from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan.

The Court entered an Adjudicatory Hearing Order on April 12, 2017. Father stipulated to dependency based on his inability to provide suitable housing for his six (6) children. Ms. D-------- also stipulated to dependency based on her inability to provide suitable housing for S-----. Ms. S------- did not appear. DSCYF had telephone contact with Ms. S------- and she participated in a Team Decision Making meeting (herein "TDM") but the social worker had to terminate the call due to Ms. S-------'s unruly behavior. The Court found that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the child from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan.

The Court entered a Dispositional Hearing Order on June 13, 2017. The Court found the children continued to be dependent as to Father and both Mothers. Ms. S------- did not appear. The Case Plans and Child in Care Plans were adopted as an Order of the Court and incorporated into the Order. The record reflects that the Court reserved its decision as to whether DSCYF made reasonable efforts to reunify the family and finalize the permanency plan in the Dispositional Hearing Order. The Court listed a number of concerns DSCYF needed to address before the next hearing.²⁸ Ms. D-------- and Father signed their individual Case Plans on June 5, 2017. Ms. D--------'s and Father's Case Plan each included the following elements: obtain employment or verify a source of income; complete a substance abuse evaluation and follow any recommended treatment; obtain appropriate housing; complete a parenting class; complete a mental health evaluation and follow any recommended treatment; and attend visits with the children.

28 See Dispositional Hearing Order entered by this Court on June 13, 2017.

The Court entered a 1^st Review Hearing Order on August 22, 2017. The Court found the children continued to be dependent as to Father and both Mothers. Ms. S------- did not appear. The Court found that Father and Ms. D-------- made some progress on their Case Plans. They found housing in New Jersey and DSCYF indicated it would submit paperwork for an expedited ICPC. The Court indicated in the 1^st Review Hearing Order that soon after the Dispositional Hearing, DSCYF changed the social worker assigned to this case and Berlinetta Wright was assigned. The parties involved reported that Ms. Wright did a wonderful job to resolve the outstanding issues. As such, the Court found that DSCYF had made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the children from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan.

The Court signed an expedited ICPC on August 29, 2017, for Father and Ms. D--------'s home in New Jersey.

The Court entered a 2^nd Review Hearing Order on October 23, 2017. The Court found the children continued to be dependent as to Father and both Mothers. Ms. S------- did not appear. Father and Ms. D-------- continued to make progress on their Case Plans as they waited for New Jersey to complete the ICPC. The Court found that DSCYF had made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the children from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan.

The Court entered a 3^rd Review Hearing Order on January 1, 2018. The Court found the children continued to be dependent as to Father and both Mothers. Ms. S------- did not appear. Father and Ms. D-------- continued to make progress on their Case Plans. However, their ICPC from New Jersey was denied. New Jersey required the parents to supply pay stubs, references, urine screens, parenting certificates, and documents related to drug and mental health records. There was also a concern that the parents had prior substantiations in 2006 and 2008, they have adult children living in the home, and they are unorganized. The Court found that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the children from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan.

The Court entered a Permanency Hearing Order on March 13, 2018. The Court found the children continued to be dependent as to Father and both Mothers. Ms. S------- did not appear. Since the last hearing, Father and Ms. D-------- showed little progress in their Case Plans. Ms. D-------- needed to provide DSCYF with her income information; an updated substance abuse evaluation; and updated information regarding her mental health. Father needed to provide DSCYF with his income verification letter; an updated substance abuse evaluation; and updated mental health information. DSCYF indicated, at that time, that it would take the case back to the Permanency Planning Committee for a possible goal change. The Court found that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the children from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan.

The Court entered a Post-Permanency Hearing Order on May 30, 2018. The Court found the children continued to be dependent as to Father and both Mothers. Ms. S------- did not appear. Father and Ms. D-------- were making progress on their Case Plans. However, there were concerns that Ms. D--------'s and Father's substance abuse and mental health evaluations would have to be redone in New Jersey. The Court found that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the children from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan.

On August 21, 2018, DSCYF filed a Motion to Change Goal. The DSCYF Permanency Planning Committee recommended a goal change to TPR/Adoption for C-------, A----, B----, and S-----.

The Court entered a 2^nd Post-Permanency Hearing Order on September 20, 2018. The Court found the children continued to be dependent as to Father and both Mothers. Ms. S------- did not appear. Father and Ms. D-------- had a significant setback in their progress on their Case Plans. They had separated, Ms. D-------- moved into a domestic violence shelter, and Father indicated he may move back to Delaware. The Court found that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the children from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan.

The Motion to Change Goal was consolidated with the 2^nd Post-Permanency Hearing. Father and Ms. D-------- opposed the goal change. They argued for concurrent goals of reunification and TPR/ Adoption. The Court agreed and approved the goal changes for C-------, A----, B----, and S----- to concurrent goals of reunification and TPR/Adoption.

The Court entered a 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing Order on December 21, 2018. The Court found the children continued to be dependent as to Father and both Mothers. Ms. S------- made her first appearance in Court on December 19, 2018. Father and Ms. D-------- showed little progress on their Case Plans. DSCYF was ordered to meet with Ms. S------- to ascertain her needs and write a Case Plan for her. The Court had concerns as to DSCYF's reasonable efforts as Ms. D--------'s attorney argued her client's ICPC referral should have been done months prior but was only submitted two (2) weeks before the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing on December 19, 2018. The Court also had concerns as to DSCYF's reasonable efforts because they had failed to file a TPR Petition despite asking the Court to change the goal. Nonetheless, the Court found that DSCYF made reasonable efforts because the ICPC referral was in fact submitted and a Petition for Guardianship had recently been filed by A--------- P----- and M--- S---- that might have alleviated the need for a TPR Petition.

On January 10, 2019, the Court appointed Brian Jordan, Esquire, to represent Ms. S-------.

The Court held a 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing March 11, 2019, and continued the hearing on May 9, 2019. The Court's Order was entered on May 16, 2019.²⁹ The Court found the children continued to be dependent as to Father and both Mothers. Ms. S------- arrived 40 minutes late to the first day of the hearing and did not appear for the second day of the hearing. Ms. D-------- did not appear for either day of the hearing. The Court learned that DSCYF told Ms. D-------- on February 26, 2019, that the state of New Jersey had denied her ICPC. Father showed signs of progress with his Case Plan because on the second day of the hearing, the Court learned that Father had apparently secured housing in Delaware. However, DSCYF expressed concern about the housing because the lease was in the name of M--- S---- and A--------- P----- and not in his name. The Court found that DSCYF had made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the children from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan.

29 See The 4^th Post-Permanency Review Hearing Order entered on May 16, 2019. The hearing was scheduled for March 11, 2019. The Court did not have sufficient time to complete the hearing. A second day was scheduled for May 9, 2019.

**********

Termination of Parental Rights

On January 14, 2019, DSCYF filed a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights (herein "TPR") against Father and Ms. D-------- in the interest of S----- H----- and a TPR against Father and Ms. S------- in the interest of C-------, A----, and B---- H-----.

The Court held a two-day Termination of Parental Rights Hearing on this matter on September 13, 2019, and October 10, 2019. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Court took the matter under advisement. The Court's analysis of the evidence is as follows.

**********

Guardianships

D----- V-------- filed a Petition for Guardianship on March 6, 2017, for all the children in DSCYF custody. Petitioner was present for the PPH on March 15, 2017. However, she failed to appear on April 10, 2017, and her Petition was dismissed for failure to pursue.

V------- M---- filed a Petition for Guardianship on September 14, 2018, for S-----. Petitioner failed to appear on March 11, 2019, or May 9, 2019, and her Petition was dismissed for failure to pursue.

A--------- P----- and M--- S---- filed a Petition for Guardianship on December 3, 2018, for C-------, A----, and B----. Their Petition for Guardianship was consolidated with the Dependency/Neglect Petition for Custody in the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing Order on December 21, 2018. A--------- P----- and M--- S---- filed a Petition for Guardianship for S----- on September 19, 2019. A hearing on both Petitions for Guardianship was consolidated with the second day of the TPR hearing on October 10, 2019. A decision denying the Petition for Guardianship is being entered simultaneously herewith.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ms. S------- was not involved in the children's lives when they came into DSCYF custody in March, 2017. Ms. S-------'s first contact with DSCYF was in December, 2018, when she requested visits with her children (C---, C-------, A----, and B----). Ms. S------- made her first Court appearance at the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing on December 19, 2018, one year and nine months after the children came into DSCYF custody. Mr. Jordan was appointed to represent Ms. S------- and he met with her after the first day of the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing on March 11, 2019. Ms. S------- stopped contacting Mr. Jordan after their meeting in March, 2019. DSCYF also indicated that Ms. S------- had not had contact with any workers related to the case.

Ms. D-------- is the biological Mother of S----- and a stepmother figure for A---- and B----. (She is not married to their father but she was living with them and Father.) S----- goes by the name J----. Ms. D-------- was present for the Preliminary Protective Hearing on March 15, 2017, and each hearing thereafter through the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing. On February 26, 2019, after the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing and before the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing, Ms. D-------- learned that New Jersey denied her ICPC. She failed to appear for either day of the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing on March 11, 2019, and May 9, 2019. Ms. D-------- appeared for both days of the TPR hearing but was approximately two (2) hours late each day.

Ms. D-------- was making progress on her Case Plan until the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing when she failed to appear after her ICPC was denied. At the TPR hearing, Ms. D--------'s attorney indicated that her client concedes that she has failed to plan for S-----'s return but she argues that the TPR should be denied, as it is not in the child's best interests. Ms. D--------'s Case Plan included the following elements: obtain employment or verify a source of income; complete a substance abuse evaluation and follow any recommended treatment; obtain appropriate housing; complete a parenting class; complete a mental health evaluation and follow any recommended treatment; and attend visits with the child. The Court's 3^rd Post-Permanency Order indicated that Ms. D-------- received $802.25 from SSI and $192 for food stamps. However, it is not clear whether that was sufficient income to support S-----. Also in the Court's 3^rd Post-Permanency Order, the Court notes that Ms. D-------- completed her substance abuse evaluation in July, 2018. However, New Jersey required her to update the substance abuse evaluation before they would approve her ICPC and she never updated the evaluation. Ms. D-------- did not obtain appropriate housing because her ICPC in New Jersey was denied on February 26, 2019, and she never addressed New Jersey's concerns so that they could change their decision. There is no dispute that Ms. D-------- completed her Triple P Parenting Class. Ms. D-------- completed a mental health evaluation in March, 2017, in Delaware. However, DSCYF indicated at the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing that the New Jersey ICPC office had concerns about her mental health medication compliance and wanted her to get an updated Mental Health and psychiatric assessment with urine screens. She never complied with their requests. It is undisputed that she consistently visited with S-----.

Father has appeared for every hearing in the Dependency/Neglect proceedings except for the 3^rd Review Hearing when he was apparently injured after a roofing accident. The children have a history of being neglected in Father's care. At the first day of the TPR hearing, Father testified that his children have been in DSCYF custody three times. The first time was in 2007-2008 when there were concerns of medical neglect.³⁰ The second time occurred in 2012-2013. Father indicated the main issue at that time was medical neglect but the record indicates it was related to the lack of suitable housing for the children including the deplorable conditions of the home. At the start of the TPR hearing, the children had been in care for two years and seven months. Father admitted that DSCYF got involved with his family due to issues related to medical neglect, the condition of the home, substance abuse concerns, and a home invasion of his residence. DSCYF had Father's case open in treatment for one year prior to them filing for custody in March, 2017.

30 The Court does not have records indicating the children were in DSCYF care in 2008 in Delaware, outside of statements from a 2012 PPH Order. It is possible they were in custody in New Jersey.

The parties agreed that Father has been working on his Case Plan but they disagree as to whether he has completed it. Father's Case Plan included the following: (1) obtain employment or verify a source of income; (2) complete a substance abuse evaluation and follow any recommended treatment; (3) obtain appropriate housing; (4) complete a parenting class; (5) complete a mental health evaluation and follow any recommended treatment; and (6) attend visits with the children. Father's progress on his Case Plan is summarized as follows:

(1) Father indicated throughout the entire Dependency/Neglect case that he was employed as a roofer for his father's company in New Jersey, F----- & S--- R------ Co. Father indicated at the second day of the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing that he and his brother took over their father's business when his father died in February, 2019. DSCYF has asked Father for a letter of verification from his employer since Father started his Case Plan but they represented that they have never received copies of pay stubs or verification of employment. Father testified that he had given multiple copies of documentation to DSCYF during the course of the dependency case but never kept a copy for himself. A review of the Orders in the Dependency/Neglect file shows that DSCYF was still seeking verification of Father's income at the First review hearing and at the Permanency hearing. The first Post-Permanency Order indicates that "Father has provided sufficient information to DSCYF". However, the second, third, and fourth Post-Permanency Orders indicate that DSCYF was still seeking verification of Father's income. Therefore, regardless of what the Court's First Post-Permanency Order said, it was clear in subsequent Orders that DSCYF was not satisfied that Father had proven his income.

At the first day of the TPR hearing, Father submitted a hand written note allegedly from Father's brother stating Father is a co-owner of F----- & S--- R------

Co. and he earns $900 to $1,200 per week in cash.³¹ When questioned, Father indicated that he had W-2s and tax returns from prior years that would support his testimony in this regard. At the conclusion of the first day, the Court strongly encouraged Father to prove his testimony at the second day of the TPR hearing by providing copies of his W-2 and tax returns. On the second day of the TPR, the Court asked Father if he had brought a W-2 or tax return supporting his testimony and he admitted that he had not.

(2) Regarding Father's substance abuse, he testified that he had an evaluation in the summer of 2017. While DSCYF was never able to obtain a copy of the evaluation, Father admits it recommended treatment. Father engaged in counseling for 12 weeks. He was expected to go to group sessions twice per week and individual sessions once per month. Father admits that he stopped going to his treatment in Delaware when he moved to New Jersey. The state of New Jersey asked for Father to complete an updated substance abuse evaluation before they would approve the ICPC. Father did not complete an evaluation in New Jersey before returning to Delaware in 2019. Also, there was no evidence that he returned to treatment once he returned to Delaware.

In July, 2019, DSCYF asked Father to seek an updated evaluation as they had concerns since Father was moving back to the neighborhood where he previously had substance abuse issues. Father testified that he went to Brandywine Counseling in the summer of 2019, but Brandywine Counseling informed him that he needed a referral. Father claims that he told DSCYF that he needed a referral but no one from DSCYF reached out to him. The Court has no evidence that Father has successfully completed this element of his Case Plan.

(3) After the children came into DSCYF custody, Father and Ms. D-------- moved to New Jersey. DSCYF made a referral for an ICPC. The ICPC was not approved before Father and Ms. D-------- separated. Father lived with relatives in New Jersey until he moved back to Delaware in May, 2019. Father's Delaware residence is a home located in Edgemoor Gardens originally rented in the name of M--- S---- and A--------- P-----. Father claims the lease was in their name because Father had poor credit. Father testified that in the beginning of September, 2019, his name and his children's names were added to the lease and he submitted a copy of the lease into evidence.³² Father also testified that he has been paying the rent on this property since May, 2019, and submitted into evidence a letter from the landlord supporting his testimony in this regard.³³ Father testified at the first day of the TPR hearing that the home in Edgemoor Gardens is ready for the children to move-in except he needed to move the
children's bedding and furniture that he had in storage. Father indicated that he could have the children's room set up before the second day of the TPR hearing. Father admitted that he was not able to obtain suitable housing for his children on his own and needed the help of Mr. S---- and Ms. P-----. However, on the second day of the TPR hearing, which was consolidated with the Petition for Guardianship filed by Mr. S---- and Ms. P-----, the Court learned from Mr. S---- that the lease, which Father had admitted into evidence, was not a valid lease. Mr. S---- admitted that he took a copy of the lease that had his and Ms. P-----'s name on it, whited out their names, and added Father's name and the children's name. Mr. S---- also admitted that he typed the letter Father submitted into evidence supporting Father's position that he had made the rent payments and that Mr. S---- signed the letter not the landlord. Based on Mr. S----'s testimony, the Court cannot find Father's testimony credible and cannot find that Father has appropriate housing for the children at this time.

(4) It is undisputed that Father completed his parenting class in 2017.

(5) It is undisputed that Father completed his mental health evaluation in October, 2017. However, Father testified that DSCYF told him in July, 2019, that it was a good idea to provide a more up-to-date mental health evaluation through Mid-Atlantic Behavioral Health (herein "Mid-Atlantic"). Father testified he went to Mid-Atlantic on September 3, 2019. Father's Case Plan was never amended to include the need for an updated mental health evaluation. There was no evidence submitted regarding the second evaluation. The Court finds Father completed this element of his Case Plan.

(6) There is no dispute that Father has been consistent with visiting his children, he is appropriate with the children, the children enjoyed visits with Father, and the children have a bond with Father. The Court finds Father satisfied this element of his Case Plan.

31 See Father's Exhibit #5 from September 13, 2019.

32 See Father's Exhibit #3 from September 13, 2019.

33 See Father's Exhibit #4 from September 13, 2019.

Despite the fact that Father has consistently visited the children, Father did not appear to be familiar with the children's needs. Father admitted that he has not participated with his children's counseling and has not consulted with their therapists for the two years and seven months that they have been in DSCYF's custody. Alison Randall, the children's therapist, testified that she does not believe Father has an understanding of what the children need with respect to their mental health because Father never called Ms. Randall to inquire about their progress in therapy. Additional details regarding the children's mental health is set forth in the best interest factor analysis below. The Court found it significant that Father does not know the children's current medications, has not attended any school meetings, and has only attended a few doctor's appointments. When asked about the specific school and grade levels of his children, Father was wrong about each child's grade level and he did not know the name of their schools. Father also did not know the name of any of his children's teachers from the previous years. Father was correct when asked which children have an Individualized Education Plans ("IEPs") - C-------, B----, and C---. However, Father had not attended any of the IEP meetings since the children came into care nor was he aware when the next meetings were scheduled.

A---- and B---- are placed in the home of K---- and C-------- S----- who, upon information and belief, are an adoptive resource. DSCYF reports the girls appear comfortable in the home and they have bonded to the S------.

S----- is also currently residing in the home of the S-----s. However, the S-----s have indicated to DSCYF that they cannot be an adoptive resource for S-----. The S-----s are willing to be a temporary placement for S----- until a more permanent placement or adoptive resource is found.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a parent's interest in his or her children is one of the "oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the] Court."³⁴ Although parental rights are important liberty interests, both the United States Supreme Court and the Delaware Supreme Court have acknowledged that the State has the power to limit parental rights to protect a child's health and welfare.³⁵ In addition, the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 ("ASFA") emphasizes the importance of child safety and a child's need for permanency by placing limits on the amount of time in which parents may rehabilitate themselves and assume their parental responsibilities, provided that the State has developed a meaningful case plan for the parents and made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.³⁶ In accordance with Court rules, a hearing addressing permanency for children in foster care must be "held not later than 12 months from the time the child has 'entered foster care.'"³⁷

34 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).

35 See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-167 (1944); In the Matter of Burns, 519 A.2d 638, 645 (Del. 1986); see also Daber v. Division of Child Protective Services, 470 A.2d 723, 726 (Del. 1983) ("A society which arrogates to itself the power to intervene and disrupt [the parent-child relationship] can do so only for the most compelling reasons necessary to correct or protect a child from circumstances which directly threaten or affect the minor's physical or emotional health.").

36 In re K.L.T., 2001 WL 493113 (Del. Fam. Ct. Jan 22, 2001).

37 Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 216 Referencing Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 209(d).

In Delaware, the statutory standard for terminating parental rights consists of a two-part analysis.³⁸ First, the Court must be satisfied that one or more of the enumerated statutory grounds set forth in 13 Del. C. §1103(a) has been established.³⁹ If the statutory basis is failure to plan, the court must review whether the State developed a meaningful case plan and made reasonable efforts to reunify the family or avoid out of home placement.⁴⁰ Second, the Court must find that severing the parental rights is in the best interests of the child as that term is defined in 13 Del. C. § 722.⁴¹

38 See Division of Family Services v. Hutton, 765 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Del. 1971).

39 Id.; see also In re Hanks, 553 A.2d 1171, 1178 (Del. 1989).

40 D.F.S. v. N.S. and R.T., 2009 WL 5206720, at 18 (Del. Fam. Ct. Dec. 11, 2009); see also In re Hanks, 553 A.2d at 1179.

41 In re Hanks, 553 A.2d at 1178.

A clear and convincing standard is required for terminating parental rights due to the permanent nature of the proceedings and the importance of the parental rights at stake.⁴² The clear and convincing standard requires greater factual certainty than a preponderance of the evidence standard, thereby striking a fair balance between the rights of the parent and the State's legitimate concerns.⁴³ The Delaware Supreme Court has described the clear and convincing standard of proof as "evidence that 'produces in the mind of the trier of fact an abiding conviction that the truth of [the] factual contentions [is] 'highly probable.'"⁴⁴ In addition, clear and convincing evidence "means to prove something that is highly probable, reasonably certain, and free from serious doubt."⁴⁵ The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law under the clear and convincing standard described above.

42 See Patricia A.F. v. James R.F., 451 A.2d 830, 832 (Del. 1982).

43 Id.

44 Hudak v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140, 147 (Del. 2002) (citing Cerberus Int'l v. Apollo Mgmt., 794 A.2d 1141 (Del. 2002)). See also Shipman v. Division of Social Services, 454 A.2d 767, 769 (Del. Fam. Ct. 1982) (holding that clear and convincing means the degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the fact-finder "a firm belief or conviction as to allegations sought to be established"), aff'd, Betty J.B. v. Division of Social Services, 460 A.2d 528 (Del. 1983).; accord 29 Am. Jur.2d Evidence § 157 (1994) (collecting cases); 2 John W. Strong, McCormick On Evidence § 340 (5th ed. 2001) ("It has been persuasively suggested that [the clear and convincing standard] could be more simply and intelligibly translated to the jury if they were instructed that they must be persuaded that the truth of the contention is 'highly probable.'").

45 Clark v. Clark, No. 654, 2009, 2010 WL 2163902, at *3 (Del. 2010) (citing Hudak v. Procek, 806 A.2d 140, 147 (Del. 2002)).

DISCUSSION

I. Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights

The Court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of the grounds for termination of parental rights as set forth in 13 Del. C. § 1103(a) has been met. DSCYF's Petitions for Termination of Parental Rights allege that Ms. S-------, Ms. D--------, and Father have failed to plan for their children. Failure to Plan is set out in 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5):

(5) The parent or parents of the child, or any person or persons holding parental rights over the child, are not able, or have failed, to plan adequately for the child's physical needs or mental and emotional health and development, and 1 or more of the following conditions are met:

a. In the case of a child in the care of the Department or a licensed agency:

1. The child has been in the care of the Department or licensed agency for a period of 1 year, or for a period of 6 months in the case of a child who comes into care as an infant, or there is a history of previous placement or placements of this child; or
2. There is a history of neglect, abuse or lack of care of the child or other children by the respondent; or
3. The respondent is incapable of discharging parental responsibilities due to extended or repeated incarceration, except that the Court may consider post-conviction conduct of the respondent; or
4. The respondent is not able or willing to assume promptly legal and physical custody of the child, and to pay for the child's support, in accordance with the respondent's financial means; or
5. Failure to terminate the relationship of parent and child will result in continued emotional instability or physical risk to the child. In making a determination under this paragraph, the Court shall consider all relevant factors, including:

A. Whether the conditions that led to the child's placement, or similar conditions of a harmful nature, continue to exist and there appears to be little likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an early date which would enable the respondent to discharge parental responsibilities so that the child can be returned to the respondent in the near future;
B. The respondent's efforts to assert parental rights of the child, and the role of other persons in thwarting the respondent's efforts to assert such rights;
C. The respondent's ability to care for the child, the age of the child, the quality of any previous relationship between the respondent and the child or any other children;
D. The effect of a change of physical custody on the child; and
E. The effect of a delay in termination on the chances for a child to be placed for adoption.

A. Ms. S

DSCYF requests the Court find that Ms. S------- failed to plan for her children pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5). DSCYF must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. S------- failed to plan adequately for her children's physical needs or mental and emotional health and development and that one or more of the required conditions have been met.

The record is clear that A---- and B---- came into the care of DSCYF in March, 2017, well over two years ago. Therefore, DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the children have been in the care of the Department for a period of one year pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.1.

Father testified that the children were in DSCYF custody in 2008, 2012-2013, and since March, 2017. When Ms. S------- appeared for the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing in December, 2018, she admitted that the children had been living with Father since sometime in 2013 and that she had not been involved with their care since that time. The Court records indicate that Ms. S------- has an extensive history with child protective services from Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey dating back to 2007. Ms. S------- has ten children known to DSCYF.⁴⁶ None of them are in her care. According to the social report, Father and Ms. S------- were substantiated for moderate physical neglect, a level 2 finding on the child abuse registry, in 2012.⁴⁷ Therefore, DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. S------- has a history of neglect, abuse, or lack of care of these children or other children pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.2.

46 See Adjudicatory Hearing Order dated December 17, 2012.

47 DSCYF's Exhibit #2, pg. 5 from September 13, 2019.

At the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing, Ms. S------- reported that she works security for the Philadelphia Eagles home games. Additionally, she receives $750 from SSI. She lives with her uncle and her cousin but conceded her housing was not appropriate for the children. Ms. S------- had not been involved in her children's lives in the years immediately preceding the children coming into DSCYF custody. She knew the children had been returned to Father's care after being in DSCYF custody in 2012 and 2013. She did not explain why she had not been involved in the children's lives since then.

Following the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing, Brian Jordan, Esq., was appointed to represent Ms. S------- and he met with her after the first day of the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing on March 11, 2019. Mr. Jordan reported that he and Ms. S------- walked back to his office following the hearing and he gave her a "to-do" list. He has not heard from her since. After the first day of the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing on March 11, 2019, DSCYF was never able to establish sufficient contact with Ms. S------- to have her sign and/or review their proposed Case Plan. Therefore, DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. S------- is not able to assume promptly legal and physical custody of the children or to pay for the children's support in accordance with her financial means pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.4.

Finally, Ms. Randall testified that A---- and B---- do not think of Ms. S------- as their mother. Instead, the girls view Ms. D-------- as their mother. Ms. Randall testified that neither A---- nor B---- asked to visit or live with Ms. S-------. The Court finds that the conditions that existed at the time the children came into DSCYF custody, with respect to Ms. S-------, continue to exist and there is little likelihood that she will remedy the conditions in the near future. Ms. S------- has made little effort to parent these children and nobody has thwarted her efforts. She is not able to care for these children and she has no relationship with them. The children are bonded to their adoptive resource and changing custody at this time would be detrimental to them. Furthermore, according to their therapist, the children are in need of permanency and any delay in granting the TPR will cause a delay in their permanency and continue to cause harm to their mental health. Therefore, DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that failure to terminate the relationship of Ms. S------- and the children will result in continued emotional instability pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.5.

The Court finds that DSCYF established by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. S------- has failed to plan adequately for A---- and B---- pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.1, §1103(a)(5)a.2, §1103(a)(5)a.4, and §1103(a)(5)a.5 and, therefore, the grounds for termination of her parental rights in A---- and B---- have been met.

B. Ms. D

DSCYF requests the Court find that Ms. D-------- failed to plan for S----- pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5). At the TPR hearing, Ms. D--------'s attorney indicated that her client concedes that she has failed to plan for S-----'s return. Instead, Ms. D-------- argues that it is not in the children's best interest to grant the TPR.

The record is clear that S----- came into the care of DSCYF in March, 2017, well over two years ago. Therefore, DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the child has been in the care of the Department for a period of one year pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.1.

The Court records and Social Report indicate that Ms. D-------- has a history with child protective services in Delaware and New Jersey. Ms. D-------- has three children known to DSCYF. S----- has been in the care of DSCYF for two years and seven months. Ms. D-------- had two other children, possibly twins, whose parental rights were terminated by the state of New Jersey. DSCYF did not know whether it was voluntary or involuntary. Ms. D-------- was substantiated for the physical abuse of C---, Father's older son, who remains in DSCYF custody with the goal of APPLA.⁴⁸ Therefore, DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. D-------- has a history of neglect, abuse, or lack of care of this child or other children pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.2.

48 Petitioner's Exhibit # 2, pg. 4 from September 13, 2019.

The record reflects that Ms. D-------- made some progress on her Case Plan but appeared to give up after the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing when she failed to appear after the state of New Jersey denied her ICPC. Given that Ms. D--------'s ICPC with New Jersey was denied, Ms. D---- ---- is not able to assume promptly legal and physical custody of S-----. An ICPC needs to be approved before the Court can return S----- to Ms. D--------'s care and custody in New Jersey. Therefore, DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. D-------- is not able to assume prompt legal and physical custody of the child pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.4.

Based on Ms. D--------'s admission that she failed to plan and the evidence presented by DSCYF, the Court finds that DSCYF has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. D-------- has failed to plan adequately for S----- pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.1, §1103(a)(5)a.2, and §1103(a)(5)a.4, and that the grounds for termination of her parental rights in S----- have been met.

C. Father

DSCYF seeks termination of Father's parental rights on the ground of failure to plan pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5). DSCYF must establish by clear and convincing evidence that Father is not able or has failed to plan adequately for the children's physical needs, mental and emotional health and development.

The record is clear that A----, B----, and S----- came into the care of DSCYF in March, 2017, well over two years ago. Therefore, DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the children have been in the care of the Department for a period of one year pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.1.

Father admitted that the children were in DSCYF custody in 2008, 2012-2013, and since March, 2017. This Court has record of the children being in care in 2012 and again in 2017. Upon information and belief, the children may have been in care in New Jersey in 2008.

Father's oldest child, R-----, aged out of foster care. Father's second oldest child, C---, remains in foster care with a goal of APPLA. Father's third oldest child, C-------, remains in foster care with the current goal of reunification as she is 15 years old and has indicated that she does not want to be adopted. DSCYF filed a petition to terminate her parental rights as well but withdrew it based on her wishes. The Permanency Planning Committee will need to recommend a permanent plan for her.

According to the social report, Father and Ms. S------- were substantiated for moderate physical neglect, a level 2 finding on the child abuse registry, in 2012.⁴⁹ For all of the foregoing reasons, DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Father has a history of neglect, abuse, or lack of care of these children or other children pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.2.

49 DSCYF's Exhibit #2, pg. 5 from September 13, 2019.

The Court finds that Father is not able to assume promptly legal and physical custody of A----, B----, and S-----. Between the first and second day of the TPR hearing, Father moved. On the first day, Father indicated that he was residing in Edgemoor Gardens in Delaware. Father testified that he had a lease for the residence and submitted a lease into evidence, allegedly signed by the landlord, which included his name and the children's names.⁵⁰ He also submitted a letter he alleged was from his landlord indicating that he had been making the rent payments since May, 2019.⁵¹ However, on the second day of the TPR hearing, Father indicated on his demographic sheet that he had moved to New Jersey at an address the Court later learned was the residence of M--- S---- and A--------- P-----, the couple who filed for guardianship of these children. Also at the second day of the TPR hearing, the Court learned from Mr. S---- that he took a copy of the lease he had with the landlord and removed his name and Ms. P-----'s name with white out and added Father's name and the children's names to the lease.⁵² Mr. S---- also admitted that he signed the landlord's name to the lease as well as to the letter that Father admitted into evidence on the first day of the TPR hearing which indicated that Father had been making the rent payments on that residence since May, 2019. Father did not testify on the second day of the hearing to admit or deny these facts. Mr. S---- testified that he did not know where Father was living but that Father was not living in his home in New Jersey. To the contrary, Ms. P----- testified that Father is living in their home in New Jersey and she did not know why her husband testified differently. After considering all the testimony in this matter, the Court does not find Father credible. The Court believes Father is residing in New Jersey. As the Court cannot give custody to Father without an approved ICPC from the state of New Jersey, the Court finds that DSCYF established by clear and convincing evidence that Father cannot assume promptly legal and physical custody of the children pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.4. because he lacks appropriate housing.

50 Father's Exhibit # 3 from September 13, 2019.

51 Father's Exhibit # 4 from September 13, 2019.

52 Father's Exhibit # 3 from September 13, 2019.

Furthermore, the Court cannot find that Father has the ability to financially care for these children. Father reports that he is a co-owner of F----- & S-- R------ with his brother. Father testified that he earns between $900 and $1,200 per week in cash and presented a letter from his brother confirming same.⁵³ Upon further questioning, Father alleged that he has W-2s and tax returns that show he earned this amount in past years. The Court was very clear to Father at the end of the first day of the TPR hearing that it would be very helpful to his case if he was able to prove his income with W-2s or tax returns that he claimed he had. Unfortunately, on the second day the TPR hearing, Father did not bring any evidence of his income. The lack of evidence coupled with Father's lack of credibility causes this Court to doubt the veracity of Father's letter indicating that he earns $900-$1,200 per week in cash from the roofing company. Therefore, the Court finds that DSCYF established by clear and convincing evidence that Father cannot assume promptly legal and physical custody of the children pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.4 because he has not proven that he has sufficient income to support the children.

53 Father's Exhibit #5 from September 13, 2019.

Finally, the Court finds that failure to terminate the relationship of parent and child will result in continued emotional instability for the children. On the first day of the TPR, Father argued that he wanted the children returned to him so he could care for them in the Edgemoor Gardens home. Apparently, when it was clear to him that his attempt to deceive the Court into believing that he had appropriate housing in Delaware was going to fail, he changed his position on the second day of the TPR and argued that it was in the children's best interests for Mr. S---- and Ms. P----- to have Guardianship. For the reasons stated in the decision regarding the Guardianship Petition, that Petition was denied. As such, the Court is left with a father who now lives in New Jersey without an approved ICPC as the only resource for these children.

Father has had more than 2 ½ years to complete his Case Plan and he has failed to do so. There was no evidence presented that would indicate that he was close to rectifying the situations that led to the children coming into DSCYF custody. Instead of finding a steady job with reliable income, Father allegedly continues to work for his family business and has not proven that he is earning enough money to support these children. Furthermore, instead of finding stable and appropriate housing for the children, Father has chosen to recruit friends to help him attempt to deceive the Court. He has not completed his substance abuse counseling and plans to move the children back to the neighborhood where he was using drugs prior to the children coming into care.

Father has made little effort to assert his parental rights and nobody has thwarted his efforts. DSCYF has offered Father visits every other week. While he consistently exercised those visits, he did not ask for more and, other than attending a few doctors' appointments, he made no effort to exercise any of his other parental responsibilities. Father was not involved in the children's counseling, IEP meetings, or parent teacher conferences. He did not know what grades his children were in or what schools they attend.

It is undisputed that Father has a good relationship with the children and that they enjoy visiting with him. Notwithstanding that relationship, the children are not saying they want to live with him. Father was struggling to care for these children prior to them coming into DSCYF custody and continues to be unable to care for these children.

According to the children's therapist, Alison Randall, these children have significant mental health issues and attend counseling on a weekly basis. Ms. Randall outlined the mental health issues for each child and testified that Father knows nothing about their mental health because he has never contacted her to discuss their struggles or progress. She testified that the children need permanency and stability. Father cannot provide stability at this time. The girls are stable in their current placement and their foster parents are an adoptive resource. S-----, unfortunately, is not as lucky. He is placed with his sisters but their foster parents are not a permanent resource for S-----. He will need to move to a permanent placement after an adoptive resource is found. While this move will be hard for S-----, the Court finds that waiting for a permanent, stable adoptive home is better for S----- than remaining in limbo waiting for Father to resolve the same issues that existed more than 2 ½ years ago which he has not yet rectified.

Ms. Randall testified that A---- and B---- have been living with uncertainty for the past two years and seven months and deserve permanency. The girls deserve the chance to form long-term emotional bonds with a family. For S-----, further delay in termination may have a negative impact on his chances of being adopted. The permanency worker testified that it is generally more challenging to find adoptive homes as children get older, particularly if the goal is to find a home that will take a pre-teen. DSCYF and its contract agencies have exhausted all resources available to them without S----- being legally free for adoption. Many adoptive families are not willing to take children in legal limbo into their home. Although they continue to look in Delaware as new adoptive parents enter the system, the workers are not able to expand their search without S----- being legally free for adoption. S----- has also been living with uncertainty for the past two years and seven months and he deserves permanency. He needs a permanent placement where he can form long-term emotional bonds with a family. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that DSCYF established by clear and convincing evidence that failure to terminate the relationship of parent and child will result in continued emotional instability for the children pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.5.

The Court finds that DSCYF establish by clear and convincing evidence that Father has failed to plan adequately for A----, B----, and S----- pursuant to 13 Del. C. §1103(a)(5)a.1, §1103(a)(5)a.2, §1103(a)(5)a.4, and §1103(a)(5)a.5, and that the grounds for termination of Father's parental rights in A----, B----, and S----- have been met.

II. Reasonable Efforts for Reunification

Once the Court concludes that the grounds for termination of parental of rights have been met by clear and convincing evidence, the Court must also find by clear and convincing evidence that the State, or DSCYF in this case, has made "reasonable efforts" to reunify the family. Both the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and 29 Del. C. § 9003 require DSCYF to "provide reunification services to families and to prepare written case plans and review those plans semi-annually."⁵⁴

54 Powell v. Dep't of Servs. for Children, Youth, and their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 738 (Del. 2008).

The record reflects that both Ms. D-------- and Father were provided with appropriate Case Plans in June 2017 and that DSCYF offered the appropriate services to the parents.

In one instance, the record reflects that the Court reserved its decision as to whether DSCYF made reasonable efforts to reunify the family and finalize the permanency plan in the Dispositional Hearing Order entered on June 13, 2017. The Court listed a number of issues for DSCYF to address before the next hearing.⁵⁵ Soon after the Dispositional Hearing, DSCYF changed the social worker assigned to this case. At the next hearing, all parties agreed that the newly assigned social worker did a wonderful job to resolve the outstanding issues. As such, the Court found that DSCYF made reasonable efforts to prevent the unnecessary removal of the child from the home, to reunify the family, and to finalize the permanency plan. The Court continued to make the same finding at every hearing thereafter.

55 See Dispositional Hearing Order entered by this Court on June 13, 2017.

After the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing on December 21, 2018, the Court again had some concerns as to whether DSCYF exercised reasonable efforts because there was a delay in making an ICPC referral to New Jersey for Ms. D-------- and DSCYF had failed to file a TPR Petition despite asking the Court to change the goal. The Court ultimately found that DSCYF had made reasonable efforts because the ICPC referral was in fact submitted and a Petition for Guardianship had recently been filed by Ms. P----- and Mr. S---- that may well have alleviated the need for a TPR Petition. After the New Jersey ICPC office denied Ms. D--------'s ICPC on February 26, 2019, Ms. D-------- failed to appear for the remainder of the scheduled hearings until the first day of the TPR hearing. Since the ICPC was denied, there was little DSCYF could have done to facilitate reunification between Ms. D-------- and S----- absent her relocating to Delaware.

As to Ms. S-------, she did not engage with DSCYF for the majority of the case and, therefore, no Case Plan was written for her. When Ms. S------- did appear for the 3^rd Post-Permanency Hearing on December 19, 2018, DSCYF was ordered to meet with her to ascertain her needs and write a Case Plan for her. DSCYF was advised that it may correspond with Ms. S------- via telephone if necessary. However, Ms. S-------'s whereabouts have been unknown since the first day of the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing on March 11, 2019. DSCYF had a working phone number at which it previously reached Ms. S------- but they are no longer able to reach her at that number. DSCYF's efforts to reach Ms. S------- were outlined by the Court in the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing Order entered on May 16, 2019. Specifically, DSCYF called Ms. S------- on January 3, 2019, to explain the elements of her Case Plan and mailed her a copy of the Case Plan. DSCYF spoke with Ms. S------- on February 25, 2019, and March 7, 2019, about the status of her Case Plan. Prior to the second day of the hearing, DSCYF called Ms. S------- on April 1, 2019, April 15, 2019, and May 7, 2019. She did not answer DSCYF's phone calls or call DSCYF back. The Case Plan DSCYF wrote for Ms. S------- is outlined in the 4^th Post-Permanency Hearing Order entered on May 16, 2019.

Father appeared to be slowly making progress on his Case Plan since the time the children came into DSCYF custody. DSCYF made the appropriate referrals for services when Father needed them and made the referral for an ICPC when Father moved to New Jersey. DSCYF was quick to assess the home that Father claimed he had in Delaware and investigated collateral resources when appropriate. DSCYF offered Father frequent visitation. He exercised that visitation and did not request more. Unfortunately, at the instant hearing, it became clear that, despite all of the services offered to Father, he had not made as much progress on his Case Plan as everyone had thought he made. His lack of progress was his fault not DSCYF's fault.

The Court finds that it was established by clear and convincing evidence that DSCYF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family in this case.

III. Best Interests

A. After concluding that at least one statutory ground for termination of parental rights exists and that DSCYF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, the Court must next determine that TPR is in the children's best interests.⁵⁶ In reaching that decision, the Court applies the factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722.⁵⁷ The Court balances the best interest factors "in accordance with the factual circumstances presented to the Family Court in each case."⁵⁸ In some situations, the weight of one factor will counterbalance the combined weight of the other factors.⁵⁹

56 See Division of Family Services v. Hutton, 765 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Del. 2001).

57 Pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 722:

(a) The Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, the Court shall consider all relevant factors including:

(1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
(2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian(s) and residential arrangements;
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabiting in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(4) The child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community;
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title;
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
(8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.

(b) The Court shall not presume that a parent, because of his or her sex, is better qualified than the other parent to act as a joint or sole legal custodian for a child or as the child's primary residential parent, nor shall it consider conduct of a proposed sole or joint custodian or primary residential parent that does not affect his or her relationship with the child.

58 Ross v. Ross, No. 403, 2009, 2010 WL 1404220, at *3 (Del. 2010).

59 Id., at 3 (citing Fisher v. Fisher, 691 A.2d 619, 623 (Del. 1997)).

B. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will not recite all of the testimony and evidence presented at trial that can be more fully obtained from the record. Rather, the Court will analyze the evidence as it applies to the 13 Del. C. § 722 best interest factors. After a review of the best interest factors, the Court concludes that clear and convincing evidence exists to find that the termination of Ms. S-------'s, Ms. D--------'s, and Father's parental rights is in the children's best interests.

(1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;

Ms. S------- failed to appear for most of the review hearings in this matter and failed to appear for the TPR hearing. Ms. D-------- opposes the Termination of Parental Rights Petition. While she concedes that she has failed to plan for S----- to be returned to her care, she argues that termination of parental rights is not in S-----'s best interest. Father opposes the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights but gave conflicting reasons as to why it should be denied over the course of this 2-day hearing. On day one, he said the children should be returned to his care. On day two, he argued that the Court should grant the Guardianship Petition filed by Mr. S---- and Ms. P-----. Therefore, the Court must find that this factor supports denying the Termination of Parental Rights Petition but gives this factor the appropriate weight.

(2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian(s) and residential arrangements;

When this case began, A---- was almost eleven years old, B---- was nine, and S----- was almost seven. According to the therapist, A---- loves her Father but wants to remain with her foster family, and B---- and S----- are too young to understand the complexity of these proceedings and are having a hard time expressing their wishes.

During the TPR hearing, the Court heard testimony regarding A---- and how she is parentified. A---- fears that if she is returned to Father's care she will be in charge of caring for her siblings again. Ms. Randall explained that A---- wants to make sure her siblings are okay but she does not want to be in charge of them anymore. She wants a predictable and loving household. A---- wants to remain with the S-----s because they provide stability and she considers them reliable and consistent caregivers.

For B----, she struggles the most about where she wants to reside. She is developmentally young and her statements reflect that she is unable to make this complex decision. For example, she has stated that she wants to live with a family who has a dog. Ms. Randall testified that B---- is in limbo because she wants permanency and the S-----s offer it, but she remains loyal to her birth family. Ms. Randall reported that B---- is settled with her placement and though she still struggles with not being with her family, she has begun to come to terms with the fact that she will not return to Father. According to Ms. Randall, B---- needs permanency more than anything else.

S----- has a strong bond with Ms. D-------- but he also needs permanency. The two positions are conflicting. S-----'s therapist testified that terminating Ms. D--------'s rights as to S----- would be painful for him but it is in his best interests. Notwithstanding her recommendation that termination of parental rights is in S-----'s best interest, Ms. Randall also indicated that it is important for S----- to continue to have contact with Ms. D--------.

Mr. Gorman and Mr. Vrana were appointed to represent these children and have been involved with this case since the beginning.⁶⁰ When this case first opened, it was a sibling group of six children. It is very clear to the Court that everyone involved expected these children to be returned to their parents and worked very hard to make that happen. It is also very clear to the Court that Mr. Gorman and Mr. Vrana took their volunteer position very seriously and struggled with the right recommendation to the Court. In fact, they reserved their decision until the evidence concluded. After much deliberation, both attorneys recommended that the Court grant the TPR Petition. For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds this factor supports granting the TPR Petition.

60 Mr. Gorman was appointed to represent R----- and Cwhen they were in DSCYF custody in 2012.

(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents , grandparents , siblings , persons cohabiting in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child , any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;

Father and Ms. D-------- visited with the children consistently throughout the time this case was pending. Beginning in March, 2017, Father and Ms. D-------- were visiting together with their children every weekend. At the 1^st Review Hearing on August 16, 2017, DSCYF indicated the visits had moved to the community and they were going well. DSCYF reported at the 3^rd Review Hearing on January 5, 2018, that the children were visiting at Ms. D--------'s and Father's residence in New Jersey. However, DSCYF indicated at the Permanency Hearing that the unsupervised visits in New Jersey were suspended because it was giving the children "false hope" that they would be returned to their parents in the near future and they could not be returned to their parents because the ICPC was denied. For a short period of time in June, 2018, DSCYF suspended visits completely after Father and Ms. D-------- separated and Ms. D-------- moved into a Domestic Violence Shelter (see factor 7). The visits later resumed with Ms. D-------- and Father visiting separately on alternating weekends in the community in Delaware. The visits have gone well and the children continue to have a bond with Father and S----- continues to have a bond with Ms. D--------. To the contrary, Ms. S------- has never visited the children and the children do not have a bond with her. As such, the Court finds this factor supports granting the Petition as to Ms. S------- and denying the Petition as to Father and Ms. D--------.

(4) The child's adjustment to his or her home , school and community;

A---- and B---- have been in the same foster home since April, 2018, and, upon information and belief, the foster parents are an adoptive resource for the girls. The home consists of the foster parents as well the foster parents' two (2) adopted sons. All reports indicate that the girls have adjusted very well to the home. The girls have had minor behavioral issues but they were receptive to redirection. Allison Randall testified that both A---- and B---- are settled in this home and removing them from this home is not in their best interest. They have adjusted to this home and the community in which they reside.

During the summer of 2019, S----- was placed in the same foster home. The trial placement disrupted after there was an incident that took place between the H----- children and the foster parents at a Chick-fil-a. DSCYF reported that S----- was not responding to redirection and was misbehaving. The foster father picked up S----- and forced him into a chair. A---- stood up to defend her brother and chest bumped the foster father. Also, there were other incidents in the foster home when B---- and S----- started teaming up against the adopted children in the foster home. After these series of incidents, the foster parents decided that they cannot be an adoptive resource for S----- but they are willing to be a placement resource for him until a permanent placement is found. While S----- agrees that he does not want to stay in the foster home permanently, he still indicates that he wants to be placed with B---- even though he knows that's not a possibility. As such, S----- has not had the opportunity to adjust to a permanent home or community and will need to be moved again.

The children have not adjusted to any of the parents' current homes. When Ms. S------- last appeared, she admitted her then current home is not appropriate for the children. The children have not visited her, her home, or her community and, therefore, have not adjusted to living with her. It appears Ms. D-------- may still be in a domestic violence shelter in New Jersey and the children cannot reside with her because New Jersey denied the ICPC. Therefore, the children have not had any contact with her home. On the first day of the hearing, Father represented that if the children are returned to him he intends to reside in his rented home in Edgemoor Gardens in New Castle, Delaware. This is the same neighborhood where Father was residing when the children came into DSCYF custody. The children do not want to return to this development. On the second day, Father indicated that he had moved to New Jersey. The children have not visited Father at this very new residence and, therefore, they have not adjusted to that residence or community.

The children are adjusted to their current schools. A---- is in the 8^th grade at -.-. D----- School. She is a regular education student with an IEP. B---- is in the 6^th grade at -.-. D----- School. S----- is in the 4^th grade at M---- P------- Elementary School. He is a regular education student with a 504 Plan. There was no testimony about what schools the children would attend if they were returned to any of the parents' care. Therefore, the Court cannot find that the children would be adjusted to those schools.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of granting the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights.

(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;

There was no testimony about Ms. S-------'s mental and physical health as she failed to participate in case planning and failed to appear for the TPR hearing. Father and Ms. D-------- completed mental health evaluations in Delaware as part of their Case Plans. No treatment was recommended. However, when New Jersey denied Ms. D--------'s ICPC, they noted concerns for her mental health as one of the reasons for the denial.

The children are up to date medically with no reported concerns. However, there are concerns for the children's mental health. Allison Randall, the children's therapist, testified on the first day of the TPR hearing after all parties stipulated to Ms. Randall's qualification as an expert witness. Ms. Randall has been counseling B----, A----, and S----- weekly since 2018. Individual and group therapy sessions occur in the foster home.

Ms. Randall has been addressing the trauma the children experienced when living with their birth family and is working on coping mechanisms and dealing with grief and loss. According to Ms. Randall, the children's trauma stems from several sources including the neglect they suffered when they were living with the parents, allegations of sexual abuse, inappropriate discipline, chaos in the home, domestic violence, and abandonment. The children continue to experience trauma as they have been in foster care for more than 2 ½ years and have had multiple foster care placements. The children show signs of the trauma in different ways.

A---- was defensive when Ms. Randall first started working with her but is now more open with Ms. Randall. Ms. Randall described her as "the holder of the secrets" because A---- discussed the trauma suffered in the home growing up and having to take care of her siblings. A---- is parentified and always feels responsible for caring for her younger siblings. Even in the foster home where there are appropriate parental figures she occasionally reverts back to that role. For example, she acted as S-----'s protector during the incident with the foster father at Chick-Fi-La (see factor 4). Also, she reports a lot of anxiety about how Father is doing. She has indicated that she does not want to live with Father but continues to express that she is worried about how he is doing.

B---- is also struggling. Ms. Randall described B---- as protective and loyal to her birth family and especially bonded to S-----. B----'s struggle is complicated by the fact that she is developmentally young and just thinks that everything is not fair. B---- wants all the attention and parental support. She often presents as a child who wishes she was an only child.

S----- is the saddest of all the children. He suffers from depression and is angry. He struggles with being predictable and consistent due to ADHD. In Ms. Randall's opinion, he needs permanency the most. Ms. Randall testified that S-----'s most consistent "placement" has been his school, M---- P------- Elementary.

In light of the children's poor emotional and mental health, Ms. Randall represented that A---- and B---- desperately need the predictability that the foster parents can provide. S----- also needs a predictable and loving household and he needs a caregiver who takes his mental health seriously. None of the parents have been able to meet the children's needs in this regard. For all of the foregoing reasons, this factor weighs in favor of granting the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights.

(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under §701 of this title;

Ms. S-------, Ms. D--------, and Father have all failed to comply with their parental responsibilities.

The record reflects that Ms. S------- has failed to meet her children's needs throughout this case and for the majority of the children's lives. Ms. S------- has eight other children, besides A---- and B----, none of whom are in her care.⁶¹ While Ms. S------- reported that she receives $750 from SSI and she reported that she works security for the Philadelphia Eagles home games, she has not proven that she has adequate resources to care for these children. Ms. S------- has failed to meet her children's needs and has been absent from their lives for at least the last seven (7) years.

61 See Adjudicatory Hearing Order dated December 17, 2012.

Ms. D-------- has complied with some of her parental responsibilities for S-----. She has visited him regularly and she has contacted Ms. Randall asking about S-----'s mental health and therapy sessions. On the other hand, the Court has concerns similar to those expressed by the New Jersey ICPC Office. Ms. D-------- also has not demonstrated that she has the financial resources to care for her son nor does she have appropriate housing for him. In addition, Ms. D-------- does not have two of her other children in her care as her parental rights were terminated in those children.

It was clear from Father's testimony that he also has not complied with his rights and responsibilities. Father admitted that he has not communicated with the children's counselor and did not attend any parent teacher conferences or IEP meetings. Father did attend some of the children's well visits but not all of their medical appointments. Father was asked about his children's school and their educational needs. He knew which children had IEPs but he could not name the children's teachers and he was incorrect regarding their current grade in school. Father tried to explain his plan for the children if they were returned to his care. Father stated that since he works in New Jersey as a roofer, he would need help from M--- S---- and A--------- P----- to assist with the children's everyday needs. It is not clear to the Court that Father has a valid driver's license. Father's attorney asked him if he has car insurance and he answered yes because his works pays for it. When asked if he had a license it sounded like he said no, but then the Court asked him again and he said yes.⁶² However, Father testified that his plan is to use LogistiCare to transport the children to their medical appointments. If he had a driver's license, the Court does not understand why he would need transportation to medical appointments. Also, Ms. P----- testified that she drives Father to visitation because Father does not have a valid driver's license in New Jersey. Therefore, the Court must assume that he does not have a valid driver's license. He did not explain how he would live in Delaware and get to work in New Jersey without a driver's license.

62 Termination of Parental Rights Hearing September 13, 2019, 11:24:00-11:24:26 a.m.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of granting the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights.

(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title;

Ms. D-------- began living in a domestic violence shelter in June, 2018. DSCYF reported at the 2^nd Post-Permanency Hearing on September 14, 2018, that Ms. D-------- called LaTanya Grimes at DSCYF and reported being assaulted. At that time, it was not clear to DSCYF whether Ms. D-------- was alleging that Father or Father's daughter, B-------, was the perpetrator. Father testified during the first day of the TPR hearing that the domestic violence occurred between his daughter and Ms. D--------. The Court notes that DSCYF did not amend Father's Case Plan to include participation in a domestic violence program. Therefore, the Court must assume that Father was not the perpetrator in the incident that caused Ms. D-------- to move into a domestic violence shelter in 2018. However, Ms. Randall testified that the children have reported domestic violence in their home when they were living with Father and Ms. D-------- and there was evidence that Ms. D-------- was substantiated for abusing Father's older son who is not the subject of this Petition.

While it was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that there was domestic violence between Ms. D-------- and Father, it was proven by clear and convincing evidence that there is violence among members of this family. As such, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of granting the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights.

(8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.

Ms. S------- has not lived in Delaware for some time. Her Delaware criminal history shows no concerns. There was no evidence as to any criminal history that she might have in another state. Ms. D-------- has no criminal history in Delaware but she also does not live in Delaware. There also was no evidence as to any criminal history in another state. According to Father's Delaware criminal history, Father has guilty pleas or findings to countless driving charges including driving without a valid license four (4) times and has seven (7) other guilty findings or pleas related to driving offenses. He has no other convictions. However, he has lived in New Jersey while this matter was pending, and, as of the second day of the trial, he has returned to New Jersey. There was no evidence as to his criminal history in other states. The Court would typically not be concerned with driving offenses but Father has so many findings of guilt related to driving offenses that it causes the Court concern, especially because Father's job requires him to drive to different locations to work on roofs and without a driver's license, he will have difficulty getting to work. If he can't get to work, he will not be able to support the children. As such, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of denying the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights regarding Ms. S------- and Ms. D-------- but granting it as to Father.

Conclusion regarding 13 Del . C. § 722 Best Interest Factors

The Court finds that DSCYF established by clear and convincing evidence under 13 Del. C. § 722 that it is in A----'s, B----'s, and S-----'s best interest to terminate Ms. S-------'s, Ms. D--------'s, and Father's parental rights. While factors (1), (3), and (8) may weigh in favor of denying the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights as to one or more of the parents, factors (2), (4), (5), (6), and (7) weigh in favor of granting the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights. When weighing the best interests factors, "[i]t is quite possible that the weight of one factor will counterbalance the combined weight of all other factors and be outcome determinative in some situations."⁶³ The weight assigned to each relevant factor and considerations varies with each unique factual situation.⁶⁴ The Court has the ability to assign greater or lesser weight to some factors than others to create a custody Order that is in the best interests of the child.⁶⁵ In this case, the Court places great weight on factors (5) and (6). These children are suffering because they do not have permanency and have been in limbo for more than 2 ½ years. They have been in foster care three (3) times in their very short lives. These parents have been given more than twice the amount of time typically allowed for a parent to complete their Case Plans and they have failed to fulfill their rights and responsibilities in this regard.

63 Clark v. Clark, 47 A.3d 513, 517 (Del. 2012).

64 DLK v. CS, 1986 WL 9029, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 5, 1986).

65 Id.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that DSCYF has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the statutory ground for termination of parental rights exists as to Ms. S-------, Ms. D--------, and Father under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5) for failure to plan. The Court further finds that DSCYF has made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Finally, the Court finds that DSCYF has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the children's best interests for Ms. S-------'s, Ms. D--------'s, and Father's parental rights to be terminated pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 722.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS DSCYF's Petition for the Termination and Transfer of Parental Rights in regards to Ms. S-------, Ms. D--------, and Father. The parental rights of T---- S-------, K------- D--------, and R----- H----- are TERMINATED and TRANSFERRED to DSYCF until A----, B----, and S----- are adopted.

IT SO ORDERED.

11/22/2019

Date Written Order Issued

/s/ _________

JANELL S. OSTROSKI, Judge cc: File, Parties, Counsel

Counsel and DSCYF via e-mail

Respondents via regular mail

Date e-mailed: __________

Date mailed: __________