Long & Wright v. DFS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THOMAS LONG and VICTORIA WRIGHT,1 Respondents Below, Appellants, v. DIVISION OF FAMILY SERVICES, Petitioner Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 616, 2010 Court Below: Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County File No. 10-0601TN Case No. 09-03354 Submitted: April 20, 2011 Decided: May 9, 2011 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 9th day of May, 2011, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that: 1) Thomas Long (Father) appeals from a Family Court decision granting a Division of Family Services (DFS) petition to terminate parental rights in his child, T.W.. He does not challenge the trial court s determination that there is a statutory ground for termination, or that it would be in T.W. s best interest. Father argues only 1 This Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated September 27, 2010, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). that he was deprived of due process because DFS did not make reasonable efforts at reunification. We find no merit to this argument and affirm. 2) T.W. was born on June 8, 2007. Victoria Wright (Mother) was 15 years old, and was, herself, in the custody of DFS. For the next three months, Father saw T.W. and bought Pampers for her. In November 2007, the Family Court granted an emergency ex parte Order giving custody of T.W. to DFS. At about the same time, Father was incarcerated on charges of first degree robbery. He remained in prison until January 2011. 3) The Family Court considered matters relating to T.W. s custody at ten different hearings between November 2007 and July 2010, when the termination petition was heard. Father attended all hearings, and the trial court repeatedly noted that Father was incarcerated. Despite his incarceration, the Family Court s Orders instructed Father that he could file a motion for visitation. Father never did. Father provided no support for T.W. (other than the Pampers) and never asked for a case plan for reunification. 4) DFS is required to make reasonable efforts to reunite the family whenever feasible. 2 When a parent is incarcerated for an extended period, however, it may not 2 29 Del. C. § 9003(13). 2 be feasible to attempt reunification.3 DFS did not prepare a case plan for Father because he was incarcerated for an extended period. But DFS did explore[] paternal relative resources without success. 4 The Family Court decided that DFS met its statutory obligation to attempt reunification under the circumstances. We find no error in its ruling. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Carolyn Berger Justice 3 See, e.g., Heller v. Division of Family Services, 669 A.2d 25, 30 (Del. 1995). 4 Appellee s Appendix, B-239. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
