The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a Family Court decision terminating Colt Handlon's parental rights to his two minor children, rejecting constitutional arguments that were raised for the first time on appeal.
In a decision issued Feb. 12, 2026, the three-justice panel found no plain error or abuse of discretion in the lower court's ruling that severed the father's legal relationship with his children. Chief Justice Seitz, along with Justices LeGrow and Griffiths, heard oral arguments before issuing the order.
The case originated in April 2023 when the children came under the care of the Division of Family Services after one of the minor children ingested fentanyl and cocaine while being cared for by their mother, identified as A.S. The child required revival with Narcan, an opioid overdose reversal drug.
At the time of the incident, Handlon was incarcerated on felony aggravated menacing charges. His counsel informed the court that the mother was among his alleged victims in those criminal proceedings.
Following the children's removal from parental care, DFS developed reunification case plans for both parents. Handlon's plan included requirements for psychological evaluation and compliance with treatment recommendations. Dr. Joseph Zingaro, who conducted the father's psychological evaluation, testified that he recommended substance abuse evaluation and anger management training for Handlon.
The case proceeded through Delaware's Family Court system, where proceedings to terminate parental rights typically involve stringent legal standards designed to protect both children's welfare and parents' fundamental rights. Delaware law requires clear and convincing evidence that termination serves the children's best interests and that reasonable efforts at family preservation have failed.
In termination proceedings, parents face the potential permanent severance of their legal relationship with their children. These cases represent some of the most consequential decisions in family law, as they definitively end parental rights and clear the path for adoption or other permanent placement arrangements.
Handlon appealed the Family Court's termination decision to the Delaware Supreme Court, raising constitutional arguments for the first time during the appellate process. However, the high court applied the plain error standard of review when constitutional issues are raised for the first time on appeal, rather than the more lenient standard that might apply if such arguments had been properly preserved at trial.
Under Delaware's plain error doctrine, appellate courts will only reverse lower court decisions when errors are so obvious and egregious that they undermine confidence in the judicial process. This represents a significantly higher bar than standard appellate review, where properly preserved legal arguments receive more favorable consideration.
The Delaware Supreme Court found that neither plain error nor abuse of discretion occurred in the Family Court's handling of the case. An abuse of discretion standard typically applies to family court decisions involving children's best interests, recognizing that trial judges are better positioned to evaluate witness credibility and assess family dynamics.
The decision reflects Delaware's approach to balancing parental rights against child protection concerns. While parents possess fundamental constitutional rights to the care and custody of their children, those rights must yield when children face substantial risk of harm and parents fail to address the underlying issues that brought their families into the child welfare system.
Delaware's termination of parental rights statutes require courts to consider multiple factors, including the parent's ability to provide proper care, the duration of the child's placement outside the home, and the likelihood of successful rehabilitation. Courts must also ensure that reasonable efforts were made to preserve the family unit before pursuing the permanent solution of termination.
The involvement of both DFS and the Office of the Child Advocate in the proceedings demonstrates Delaware's multi-agency approach to child protection cases. The Office of the Child Advocate serves as an independent voice for children's interests in dependency and termination proceedings, separate from DFS's role as the petitioning agency.
The case number CS24-02-03TS indicates the matter originated in Delaware's Family Court in 2024, with the TS designation typically referencing termination of parental rights proceedings. The progression from Family Court to the state's highest court within approximately two years reflects the expedited timeline often applied in child welfare cases.
Handlon's case illustrates the challenges facing incarcerated parents in dependency proceedings. Physical custody limitations can significantly impair parents' ability to participate in services, maintain contact with children, and demonstrate progress toward reunification goals.
The Supreme Court's affirmance finalizes the termination of Handlon's parental rights, clearing potential legal obstacles to the children's permanent placement. With both parents' rights terminated, the children become legally free for adoption or other permanent arrangements designed to provide stability and safety.
The decision represents another example of Delaware courts prioritizing child welfare while maintaining rigorous procedural protections for parents facing the loss of their fundamental parental rights.