Clarifying § 1103(a)(9) and Rule 26.1(c) in Delaware TPR Appeals: Medical Examiner Evidence Can Establish “Unexplained Death or Serious Injury,” and Documentation Gaps Sustain “Failure to Plan”

Introduction

In Prince‑Wilks v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families (Del. Sept. 5, 2025), the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed a Family Court order terminating the parental rights of the appellant father to his three‑year‑old child. The appeal came to the Court under Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c), Delaware’s no‑merit procedure for appeals where appointed counsel, after a conscientious review, concludes that no nonfrivolous issues exist. The Court accepted counsel’s assessment, considered the father’s pro se arguments, and affirmed.

This decision is notable for two reasons:

It reinforces how clear and convincing medical and circumstantial evidence—particularly medical examiner testimony showing a pattern of inflicted injuries and maltreatment—can satisfy 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(9)’s “unexplained death or serious injury” ground for termination of parental rights (TPR), even in the absence of a criminal conviction or charges.
It underscores that a parent’s failure to provide proof of compliance with reunification case‑plan requirements—especially while residing out of state—supports termination under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5) (“failure to plan”), when coupled with the child’s extended stay in agency custody.

The ruling also reiterates Delaware’s appellate standards in TPR cases, including deference to Family Court fact‑finding, and clarifies the scope of Rule 26.1(c) review in the TPR context.

Summary of the Opinion

The Family Court terminated the appellant father’s rights on two statutory grounds, each proved by clear and convincing evidence:

Failure to plan for the child’s needs under 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5), coupled with the additional statutory condition that the child had been in agency custody for more than one year (13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5)(a)).
The unexplained death or serious injury of the father’s four‑year‑old child (the “Deceased Child”) under circumstances indicating intentional or reckless conduct or willful neglect by the father (13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(9)).

After finding a statutory basis for termination, the Family Court also found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the child’s best interests under 13 Del. C. § 722. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the record, accepted counsel’s Rule 26.1(c) submission, considered the father’s written arguments, found no meritorious issues, and affirmed. In doing so, it rejected the father’s alternative medical explanations for the Deceased Child’s injuries and clarified that an absence of criminal charges does not undercut a civil TPR finding proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Case Background and Procedural History

February 2023: DSCYF petitioned for emergency custody after the Deceased Child died under suspicious circumstances in the father’s care. The Family Court, at preliminary and adjudicatory hearings, found dependency based on an ongoing police investigation and evidence that the Deceased Child’s injuries were intentionally inflicted.
May 2023: A reunification case plan required the father to complete psychological and substance abuse evaluations (and follow treatment), secure stable housing and employment, complete parenting and domestic violence classes, work with a family interventionist (including creating a budget), and visit appropriately.
August–November 2023: The father made only partial progress. He completed a parenting class and a substance abuse evaluation and had employment, but he did not complete a psychological evaluation, had not provided proof of treatment participation, and remained out of state. ICPC approval was not pursued because DSCYF did not support placement with the father while concerns remained; the court noted father’s counsel could assist with seeking ICPC approval if appropriate.
February–April 2024: The Deceased Child’s death was declared a homicide; DOJ was reviewing criminal charges. The father relocated to New Jersey (living in a hotel) without stable housing. He had not had in‑person visits since the child returned to Delaware foster care in early February. He had an outstanding capias, no proof of employment or budget completion, and he had not completed a psychological evaluation. After a two‑day permanency hearing, the court set concurrent goals: reunification and TPR/adoption.
December 2024: After two continuances at the father’s request, the Family Court held a two‑day TPR trial. Witnesses included the medical examiner, the father’s service providers, DSCYF workers, the child’s foster mother and CASA, and others. The evidence showed systemic abuse of the Deceased Child—multiple brain bleeds, patterned injuries consistent with a looped electrical cord, and malnutrition due to maltreatment—and corroborating disclosures from the half‑siblings’ therapy.
January 2, 2025: The Family Court terminated the father’s rights on both asserted statutory grounds and found termination in the child’s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed on September 5, 2025.

Legal Framework

Two‑step TPR analysis: The Family Court must find (1) a statutory ground for termination and (2) that termination is in the child’s best interests under 13 Del. C. § 722. See Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533, 536–37 (Del. 2000); Powell v. DSCYF, 963 A.2d 724, 731 (Del. 2008).
Burden of proof: Clear and convincing evidence on both prongs. Powell, 963 A.2d at 731.
Statutory grounds here:
- Failure to plan: 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5), with the additional condition that the child was in agency custody for over one year, § 1103(a)(5)(a).
- Unexplained death or serious injury: 13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(9), when the death or injury occurred under circumstances indicating the parent’s intentional or reckless conduct or willful neglect.
Best interests: 13 Del. C. § 722 factors.
Appellate review:
- Legal rulings de novo. Wilson v. DFS, 988 A.2d 435, 440 (Del. 2010).
- Factual findings reviewed for clear error; if the trial court correctly applied the law, review is for abuse of discretion. Wilson, 988 A.2d at 439–40.
- Credibility determinations are for the trial court. Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979).
Procedural context: Rule 26.1(c) no‑merit appeal, with counsel moving to withdraw after a conscientious review; the appellant may submit his own points.

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Wilson v. Division of Family Services, 988 A.2d 435 (Del. 2010): Provides the overarching appellate standards—de novo review for legal issues; limited review for factual findings; abuse of discretion where the law was correctly applied. Wilson frames how the Supreme Court assesses Family Court TPR orders.
Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202 (Del. 1979): Emphasizes deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations. This is critical where, as here, the father advanced competing narratives about causation; the Family Court credited medical and therapeutic testimony over his explanations.
Shepherd v. Clemens, 752 A.2d 533 (Del. 2000): Articulates the two‑step TPR framework—statutory ground and best interests—both required for termination. Shepherd supplies the structural roadmap the Family Court followed and the Supreme Court reviewed.
Powell v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, 963 A.2d 724 (Del. 2008): Confirms the clear and convincing burden for both the statutory ground and best‑interests prongs. Powell calibrates the evidentiary threshold the Family Court applied and the appellate court tested.

Core Legal Reasoning

1) Unexplained Death or Serious Injury (13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(9))

The Supreme Court agreed that clear and convincing evidence established the Deceased Child suffered an unexplained death under circumstances indicating intentional or reckless conduct or willful neglect by the father. The Court emphasized:

Medical examiner testimony: Dr. Louis Finelli testified to extensive injuries—multiple brain bleeds in various stages of healing, patterned injuries consistent with a looped electrical cord, and signs of malnutrition. The pattern and chronicity of injuries, coupled with malnourishment, indicated ongoing maltreatment.
Rejection of speculative alternative causes: Although seizure activity can produce brain bleeds and the Deceased Child had a neonatal skull fracture, the evidence showed no seizure history and close monitoring post‑discharge without developmental delays. The patterned injuries and malnutrition were inconsistent with the father’s alternative causation theories.
Circumstantial corroboration: Therapy disclosures from the half‑siblings described severe punishments and food withholding, consistent with the medical evidence of maltreatment.
No criminal predicate required: The father’s reliance on the absence of a criminal record or pending charges was misplaced. The TPR standard is clear and convincing evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil child‑welfare findings do not hinge on criminal prosecution.

Taken together, the medical and circumstantial evidence provided a coherent, compelling narrative of inflicted injury and neglect over time, satisfying § 1103(a)(9).

2) Failure to Plan (13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5) and (a)(5)(a))

The Family Court also found, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that the father failed to plan for the child’s needs. Key points included:

Limited case‑plan compliance: Despite some efforts (parenting class, substance abuse evaluation), the father did not complete essential components—psychological evaluation, proof of participation in recommended substance abuse treatment, proof of employment and budget completion, and stable housing.
Out‑of‑state residence without ICPC approval: The father resided in Pennsylvania and later New Jersey without ICPC approval for placement. DSCYF did not support placement due to unresolved safety concerns; the Family Court noted counsel could assist the father in seeking ICPC approval, underscoring that the lack of approval remained a barrier to reunification.
Visitation and engagement: After the child returned to Delaware foster care, the father had no in‑person visits, impairing bonding and reunification progress.
Duration of agency custody: The child had been in DSCYF custody for more than one year, satisfying the additional statutory condition in § 1103(a)(5)(a).

In combination, these factors demonstrated a sustained inability to meet the child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs within a reasonable time frame.

3) Best Interests of the Child (13 Del. C. § 722)

After establishing both statutory grounds, the Family Court evaluated the § 722 factors and found termination in the child’s best interests by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court deferred to those findings, which were supported by evidence that the child was thriving in a stable, adoptive resource home and that the father’s plan remained incomplete with significant safety and stability concerns unresolved.

4) Appellate Standards and Rule 26.1(c)

The Court reiterated the well‑settled standards: legal rulings are reviewed de novo; factual findings are reviewed for clear error, with deference to credibility assessments; and where the law is correctly applied, the standard is abuse of discretion. Within the Rule 26.1(c) framework, counsel must conduct a conscientious review and may move to withdraw if the appeal is wholly without merit. The Supreme Court independently reviewed the record, considered the father’s submissions, and concluded the appeal was “wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issues,” rendering counsel’s withdrawal motion moot upon affirmance.

Impact and Implications

Medical and patterned‑injury evidence under § 1103(a)(9): This decision clarifies that detailed medical examiner findings, evidence of injuries in various stages of healing, and corroborating testimony (e.g., from a therapist) can satisfy the “unexplained death or serious injury” ground. Parents cannot defeat this ground with speculative alternative explanations disconnected from the evidentiary record.
No criminal precondition: The absence of criminal charges or a prior criminal record does not undermine a civil TPR finding proved by clear and convincing evidence. The criminal and child‑welfare systems use different burdens and serve different ends.
Out‑of‑state barriers and documentation obligations: When a parent resides outside Delaware, ICPC approval becomes a practical threshold for reunification. Agencies may withhold support for ICPC placement when unresolved safety risks persist. Parents bear a critical burden to document compliance and progress—assertions of participation are insufficient without proof.
Case‑plan completeness and permanency timelines: Partial completion of a plan will not forestall TPR if key safety‑related components remain unmet and the child has remained in foster care beyond statutory timeframes. Courts favor permanency when reunification is not achievable within a reasonable time.
Scope of Rule 26.1(c) in TPR appeals: The Court’s application of Rule 26.1(c) confirms that no‑merit procedures are appropriate in TPR appeals and that the Supreme Court will perform an independent review for arguable issues, affirming where family‑court findings are supported and legally sound.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Clear and convincing evidence: A high evidentiary standard requiring the factfinder to be firmly persuaded of the truth of the allegations; higher than “more likely than not,” lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Failure to plan (13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(5)): A ground for TPR when a parent, despite help and time, does not take required steps (like treatment, stable housing, consistent visitation) to be able to safely care for the child. Often requires proof of an additional statutory condition such as the child’s extended stay in agency custody.
Unexplained death or serious injury (13 Del. C. § 1103(a)(9)): TPR may be based on a child’s death or serious injury occurring under circumstances indicating parental intentional or reckless conduct or willful neglect. The focus is on the circumstances and evidence indicating maltreatment; a criminal conviction is not required.
ICPC (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children): A uniform law requiring approval before placing a child across state lines. Without ICPC approval, courts generally cannot place a child with an out‑of‑state parent or caregiver.
Rule 26.1(c) no‑merit appeals: When counsel concludes an appeal has no nonfrivolous issues, counsel can file a brief explaining the review and move to withdraw. The appellant may submit his own points. The Court independently reviews the case to ensure no arguably meritorious issues exist.
Bench warrant (capias): A court order for arrest due to a failure to appear or comply with a court directive. An outstanding capias can signal instability and can impede compliance with case‑plan obligations.

Addressing the Father’s Appellate Points

Alternative medical explanations: The father posited seizures or a neonatal skull fracture as causes for the Deceased Child’s brain bleeds. The Court noted the lack of seizure history and the broader context—patterned injuries and malnutrition—rendered these explanations unpersuasive.
Allegations against the mother: The father argued the half‑siblings accused their mother, not him, of inappropriate touching. The Court observed that the Family Court did not rely on any such allegations to support termination, so even assuming his claim were true, it would not affect the outcome.
No criminal history: The Court squarely rejected the notion that the absence of criminal charges or a prior record undermines the TPR findings, emphasizing the distinct civil standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”

Practical Takeaways for Practitioners

Document everything: Parents must provide timely, verifiable proof of compliance (evaluations, treatment attendance, employment, budgeting, housing). Assertions without documentation will not carry the day.
Address out‑of‑state hurdles early: If reunification is contemplated, secure ICPC approval as soon as practicable. Counsel should actively assist in initiating and tracking ICPC steps.
Complete safety‑critical plan elements: Psychological and substance abuse evaluations—and adherence to recommendations—are often dispositive. Delays or repeated rescheduling can weigh heavily against reunification.
Maintain consistent visitation: Gaps in in‑person contact, especially without strong evidence of alternative engagement, can undermine best‑interest arguments for reunification.
Anticipate and address medical evidence: Where medical examiner or expert testimony indicates abuse, parents must marshal credible, supported counter‑evidence; speculative alternative theories are unlikely to meet the clear‑and‑convincing threshold.
Rule 26.1(c) vigilance: In potential no‑merit TPR appeals, counsel must perform and document a conscientious review; appellants can submit their own arguments, but the Court will focus on whether any arguably appealable issue exists given the record and standards of review.

Conclusion

Prince‑Wilks confirms and clarifies key features of Delaware TPR jurisprudence. First, robust medical and circumstantial evidence—including medical examiner testimony showing patterned injuries and maltreatment—can satisfy § 1103(a)(9) without a criminal conviction. Second, failure to plan remains a potent ground for termination when essential case‑plan tasks go unmet, documentation is lacking, and the child has been in state custody beyond statutory timeframes. Third, the Court reiterates deferential appellate review of Family Court factual findings and credibility determinations, and it reaffirms the appropriate use of Rule 26.1(c) in TPR appeals.

The decision’s broader significance lies in its practical guidance: agencies and courts may rely on coherent medical and therapeutic evidence to protect children even amidst unresolved criminal proceedings; parents must treat case‑plan compliance and documentation as nonnegotiable; and permanency will prevail where reunification cannot be safely and timely achieved. As such, this opinion strengthens Delaware’s framework for ensuring child safety and stability while providing clear markers for litigants navigating TPR proceedings.