12 Delaware opinions name it 1 courts 2019–2025 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Delaware courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Department of Services for Children, Youth & Their Familiesgreen2 sentences2025C. § 1103(a)(5)(a)-(e) (listing additional conditions). 12 Shepherd, 752 A.2d at 536-37 . 13 Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008). 8 (13) Here, the Family Court found that DSCYF had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was appropriate based on her failure to plan adequately for the Child’s physical needs or mental and emotional health and development14 and that the Child had been in DSCYF custody for 794 days—well over one year.15 The Family Court then examined the best-interests fa 2025C. § 722, severing parental rights is in the child’s best interest.12 Both of these requirements must be established by clear and convincing evidence.13 (10) Here, the Family Court found that DSCYF had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was 6 Id. at 440. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 10 Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000). 11 Id. at 537 . 12 Id. at 536-37 . 13 Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008). 6 appropr | 7 | 7 |
Shepherd v. Clemensgreen2 sentences2025C. § 722, severing parental rights is in the child’s best interest.12 Both of these requirements must be established by clear and convincing evidence.13 (10) Here, the Family Court found that DSCYF had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was 6 Id. at 440. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 10 Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000). 11 Id. at 537 . 12 Id. at 536-37 . 13 Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008). 6 appropr 2025C. § 722, severing parental rights is in the child’s best interest.12 Both of these requirements must be established by clear and convincing evidence.13 (10) Here, the Family Court found that DSCYF had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was 6 Id. at 440. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 10 Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000). 11 Id. at 537 . 12 Id. at 536-37 . 13 Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008). 6 appropr | 3 | 9 |
Wife (J. F. v. v. Husband (O. W. v. Jr.)green2 sentences2025C. § 722, severing parental rights is in the child’s best interest.12 Both of these requirements must be established by clear and convincing evidence.13 (10) Here, the Family Court found that DSCYF had proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of Mother’s parental rights was 6 Id. at 440. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 10 Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000). 11 Id. at 537 . 12 Id. at 536-37 . 13 Powell v. Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008). 6 appropr 2021V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 16 Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536-37 (Del. 2000). 6 is a statutory ground for termination.17 The Father does not challenge the Family Court’s ruling that the Maternal Grandparents established by clear and convincing evidence a statutory ground for the termination of his parental rights. (12) The next inquiry requires the Family Court to determine whether severing the parental rights is in the best interests of the child.18 Under the best- interests standard, there must be “clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights is es | 3 | 3 |
Los v. Losgreen2 sentences2024C. § 728(a); see also id. at § 729(a) (permitting modification of an order concerning visitation at any time “if the best interests of the child would be served thereby in accordance with the standards set forth in § 728(a) of this title”). 27 595 A.2d 381 (Del. 1991). 12 against Father and that he had not alleged facts that created an objective appearance of bias.28 (18) When deciding whether recusal is appropriate, a trial judge must undertake the two-step analysis set forth in Los. 2024C. § 728(a); see also id. at § 729(a) (permitting modification of an order concerning visitation at any time “if the best interests of the child would be served thereby in accordance with the standards set forth in § 728(a) of this title”). 27 595 A.2d 381 (Del. 1991). 12 against Father and that he had not alleged facts that created an objective appearance of bias.28 (18) When deciding whether recusal is appropriate, a trial judge must undertake the two-step analysis set forth in Los. | 1 | 1 |
Trenwick America Litigation Trust v. Billettgreen2 sentences2024C. § 728(a) (providing that the court shall determine “with which parent the child shall primarily reside and a schedule of visitation with the other parent, consistent with the child’s best interests and maturity, which is designed to permit and encourage the child to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that contact of the child with 1 parent would endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair such child’s emotional development”); see also id. § 729(a) (“[a]n order concerning visitation may be modified at any time if t 2024C. § 728(a) (providing that the court shall determine “with which parent the child shall primarily reside and a schedule of visitation with the other parent, consistent with the child’s best interests and maturity, which is designed to permit and encourage the child to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that contact of the child with 1 parent would endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair such child’s emotional development”); see also id. § 729(a) (“[a]n order concerning visitation may be modified at any time if t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Division of Family Services
green
2 sentences2019First, the court found that Father’s 2015 fourth-degree rape conviction of a child served as a basis for 6 Wilson v. Div. of Family Servs., 988 A.2d 435 , 439–40 (Del. 2010). 7 Id. at 440 . 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533 , 536–37 (Del. 2000). 11 Id. 12 See 13 Del. 2019First, the court found that Father’s 2015 fourth-degree rape conviction of a child served as a basis for 6 Wilson v. Div. of Family Servs., 988 A.2d 435 , 439–40 (Del. 2010). 7 Id. at 440 . 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533 , 536–37 (Del. 2000). 11 Id. 12 See 13 Del. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.