Submitted: May 8, 2019
Below: Family Court of the State of Delaware File No.
18-01-03TN Petition No. 18-01530
STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.
Strine, Jr. Chief Justice.
this appeal, the respondent below and appellant, Matthew
Derick, challenges the termination of his parental rights
("TPR") as to his son, M.D. Specifically, Derick
argues that the Family Court erred in four ways: (1) by
concluding that he had failed to plan adequately for his
son's physical needs or mental and emotional health and
development; (2) by concluding that the termination of his
parental rights was in M.D.'s best interests; (3) by
concluding that the Division of Family Services
("DFS") had made reasonable efforts to reunite the
family; and (4) by terminating his telephonic participation
in the first day of his TPR hearing because he was disruptive
and did not listen to the trial judge's instructions,
which Derick claims violated his due process rights.
to the first two issues, we find no merit in Derick's
arguments and affirm on the basis of the Family Court's
thorough and well-reasoned opinion.
to the third issue, DFS made a case plan for Derick and gave
him plenty of opportunity meet its requirements, yet he did
not do so. That is not a failure on DFS's part; it is a
failure on Derick's. This leaves only Derick's arguments
that DFS acted improperly because it did not submit an
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children request to
the state where Derick was currently residing, Arkansas, and
because it did not place M.D. with the child's paternal
grandmother, whose petition for guardianship was denied by
the Family Court. Neither argument provides a basis for
reversal. First, the Interstate Compact issue was not fairly
presented below. Second, to the extent that Derick is
trying to challenge the denial of the paternal
grandmother's petition for guardianship, he lacks
standing to do so, and he may not make a back-door challenge
to the denial of the grandmother's guardianship petition
by arguing that DFS failed to make reasonable efforts to
reunify the family in choosing not to place the child with
to the fourth issue, we find no merit to this argument
because Derick acted in a disruptive manner during the
hearing and repeatedly disregarded the trial judge's
instructions, Derick's counsel was present in person for
the entire hearing, and the Family Court granted him a second
hearing so that he could participate and provide testimony,
which gave him ample opportunity to review the record of the
first hearing date and address any relevant issues.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
 DSCYF v. M.D., No.
18-01-03TN, slip op. (Del. Fam. Ct. Sept. 14, 2018).
 Cf. Stewart v. Dep't of Servs.
for Children, Youth, and Their Families, 991 A.2d 750,
759 (Del. 2010) ("This is not a case where [DFS] failed
to meet its own obligation to provide appropriate services,
but a case where the parent failed to take advantage of the
 Supr. Ct. R. 8. In raising this issue
on appeal, Derick does not cite to any portion of the record
that addresses the issue. Rather, he cites only to a portion
of the Family Court order that concluded that DFS had made
reasonable efforts to reunify M.D. with Derick.
Compare Opening Br. at 45 (citing page 64 of the
Family Court opinion), with M.D., slip op. at 64
("The Court is satisfied by clear and ...