Rooten, Allice v. Department of Family Services for Children, Youth, and their Families (DSCYF) TPR

── Rooten, Allice v. Department of Family Services for Children, Youth, and their Families (DSCYF) TPR ── Court: Supreme Court of Delaware Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ALLICE ROOTEN,1 § § No. 8, 2026 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File No. 25-02-02-TN DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES § Petition No. 25-02410 FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND § THEIR FAMILIES, § § Petitioner Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: May 4, 2026 Decided: June 8, 2026 Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, 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 December 5, 2025, the Family Court terminated the parental rights of the appellant, Allice Rooten (“Mother”), in her sons, Conner (born 1 The Court previously assigned a pseudonym to the appellant under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). October 2015), Alexander (born May 2018), Jason (born May 2020), and Jackson (born October 2021) (the “Children”). 2 Mother appeals. (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 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 Children’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 February 22, 2024, DSCYF—which had opened a treatment case for Mother four years earlier just before Jason was born substance-exposed— petitioned for emergency custody of the Children after a social worker observed a severe burn on Alexander’s chest and learned that Mother had opted to treat the burn 2 The Court assigns pseudonyms to the Children under Rule 7(d). The Family Court’s order also terminated the parental rights of the Children’s father. We refer only to facts in the record that relate to Mother’s appeal. 2 herself instead of taking Alexander to be seen by a medical professional. The Family Court granted DSCYF’s petition that evening. (4) With the filing of DSCYF’s dependency-and-neglect petition, the mandated hearings ensued.3 At the preliminary protective hearing, the Family Court found probable cause that the Children were neglected in Mother’s care because of her failure to: (i) seek medical treatment for Alexander’s burn injury, (ii) address the Children’s routine medical and dental needs, and (iii) ensure that Conner and Alexander attended school regularly. (5) The Family Court held a contested adjudicatory hearing on April 9, 2024. The evidence presented fairly showed that Mother had not followed up on recommended medical care for Alexander, who had suffered a severe burn and had been referred to an ophthalmologist to address his “lazy” eye, or Jackson, who had been sch