The Delaware Supreme Court has ordered a remand in a significant child custody case involving the Office of the Child Advocate and parents Kaytlyn Blanchester and Dylen Shipperd. The court's decision on September 29, 2026, impacts the future of parental rights and child welfare in the state.
This case stems from a Family Court ruling that denied a petition to terminate parental rights over a child, despite the mother's previous loss of parental rights to another child. The court's ruling is crucial as it touches on the delicate balance between parental rights and the best interests of children in custody disputes.
Background
The Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) filed the appeal after the Family Court concluded that terminating the mother's parental rights was not warranted. The Family Court based its decision on the mother's history, her progress toward reunification, and the best interests of the child. The court found that the Division of Family Services (DFS) made reasonable efforts toward reunification.
The case began on May 7, 2024, when DFS obtained emergency custody of the child. The father stipulated to dependency, and the Family Court found the child dependent concerning the mother due to a prior involuntary termination of her parental rights and the child's substance exposure at birth. DFS provided both parents with case plans and pursued reunification efforts.
In January 2025, DFS sought to change the permanency goal to include both reunification and termination of parental rights. The mother began a trial reunification but was discharged from her sober-living residence in April 2025 after a positive drug test. Following this setback, DFS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents.
The Ruling
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that the Family Court had erred by not adequately weighing the best-interests factors and relying on evidence outside the record. The court stated, "The Family Court’s decision faltered on the weighing step; the court did not clearly weigh the factors or expressly articulate a best-interests finding." The ruling emphasized the need for a proper analysis of the child's best interests.
Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz and Justices Karen L. Valihura, James T. Vaughn Jr., and others formed the court en banc that reviewed the case. The court found that DFS proved a statutory ground for termination based on the mother's prior involuntary termination of parental rights. However, it noted that the Family Court's best-interests analysis was incomplete and required further examination.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for child welfare cases in Delaware. It reinforces the importance of thorough evaluations of parental fitness and the best interests of children. The court's decision to remand the case allows for a more comprehensive review of the factors that affect child custody decisions.
The ruling also emphasizes that courts must base their decisions on evidence presented during proceedings and not on external sources without proper notice to the parties involved. This ensures fairness and transparency in custody determinations, which is vital for maintaining trust in the child welfare system.
What's Next
The Family Court will now conduct a new best-interests analysis, considering all relevant factors and any new evidence presented. A hearing on a new petition filed by DFS is scheduled for October 5, 2026. The outcome of this case could set important precedents regarding parental rights and child welfare in Delaware.