Millman, Tasha v. DSCYF/DFS TPR

── Millman, Tasha v. DSCYF/DFS TPR ── Court: Supreme Court of Delaware Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TASHA MILLMAN,1 § § No. 500, 2025 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File No. 25-09-3TK DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES § Petition No. 25-21721 FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND § THEIR FAMILIES, § § Petitioner Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: April 16, 2026 Decided: May 15, 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 November 26, 2025, the Family Court terminated the parental rights of the appellant, Tasha Millman (“Mother”), in her son, born in May 2024 (the “Child”).2 Mother 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 father. We refer only to facts in the record that relate to Mother’s appeal.  (2) On appeal, Mother’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 Mother’s appeal is wholly without merit. Counsel informed Mother of the provisions of Rule 26.1(c), provided her with a copy of counsel’s motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief, and advised her that she could submit in writing any additional points that she wished for the Court to consider. Mother has submitted a narrative 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 November 25, 2024, DSCYF petitioned for emergency custody of the Child after learning that Mother, who was on probation, had been discharged from the sober living home where she had been staying because of her erratic behavior and failure to supervise the Child. Mother’s lack of supervision led to the Child—then six months old—rolling off of Mother’s bed on at least two occasions. (4) With the filing of DSCYF’s dependency-and-neglect petition, the mandated hearings ensued.3 At the preliminary protective hearing, Mother stipulated 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 that the Child was dependent in her care because she lacked stable housing and waived her right to an adjudicatory hearing. (5) At the January 15, 2025 dispositional hearing, the court reviewed with Mother the case plan that DSCYF had developed to facilitate her reunification with the Child. Mother’s case plan required her to: (i) comply with the terms of her probation; (ii) undergo a substance abuse evaluation, follow all treatment recommendations, and submit to random urine screens; (iii) complete a parenting course and atten