Jake Scott v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families TPR

── Jake Scott v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families TPR ── Court: Supreme Court of Delaware Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAKE SCOTT,1 § § No. 471, 2025 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File No. 23-02-11TN DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES § Petition No. 25-11773 FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND § THEIR FAMILIES, § § Petitioner Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: April 14, 2026 Decided: May 8, 2026 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. ORDER After consideration of the no-merit brief and motion to withdraw filed by the appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26.1(c), the responses thereto, and the Family Court record, it appears to the Court that: (1) By order dated October 20, 2025, the Family Court terminated the parental rights of the appellant, Jake Scott (“Father”), in his son, born in April 2024 (the “Child”).2 Father appeals. 1 The Court previously assigned a pseudonym to the appellant under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 2 The Family Court’s order also terminated the parental rights of the Child’s mother. We refer only to facts in the record that relate to Father’s appeal.  (2) On appeal, Father’s counsel has filed an opening brief and a motion to withdraw under Rule 26.1(c). Counsel asserts that she has conducted a conscientious review of the record and the relevant law and has determined that Father’s appeal is wholly without merit. Counsel informed Father of the provisions of Rule 26.1(c), provided him with a copy of counsel’s motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief, and advised him that he could submit in writing any additional points that he wished for the Court to consider. Father has submitted arguments for the Court’s consideration. The Delaware Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families (DSCYF) as the appellee and the Child’s attorney from the Office of the Child Advocate have responded to counsel’s Rule 26.1(c) brief and argue that the Family Court’s judgment should be affirmed. (3) On August 23, 2024, DSCYF petitioned for emergency custody of the Child after the Child’s mother violated a safety plan that DSCYF put in place because of its concerns about the Child’s mother’s untreated mental health diagnoses, history of domestic violence, and prior involvement with DSCYF. (4) With the filing of DSCYF’s dependency-and-neglect petition, the mandated hearings ensued.3 At the preliminary protective and adjudicatory hearings, Father stipulated that the Child was dependent in his care because he was 3 When a child is removed from his home by DSCYF and placed in foster care, the Family Court is required to hold hearings at regular intervals under procedures and criteria detailed by statute and the court’s rules. 13 Del. C. § 2514; Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. Proc. R. 212-219. 2 incarcerated for, among other things, endangering the welfare of a child and violating a protection-from-abuse (PFA) order. (5) In November 2024, DSCYF developed a case plan to facilitate Father’s reunification with the Child. Father’s case plan required him to, upon his release from prison: (i) undergo a psychological evaluation and follow all treatment recommendations; (ii) undergo a substance abuse evaluation and follow all treatment recommendations; (iii) work with a family interventionist to, among other things, obtain and maintain stable employm