Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mother Charlene M. Hall filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of father Christopher Moore with regard to their child born August 24, 2005. The Family Court granted the Mother's petition. The Father raised two issues on appeal: (1) the Family Court violated his right to due process under the United States and Delaware Constitutions by not appointing new counsel to represent him, after it allowed his court-appointed attorney to withdraw; and (2) the record did not support the Family Court's decision to terminate his parental rights. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Father's due process rights were indeed violated, therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case to the Family Court for a new hearing after an attorney was appointed to represent the Father. View "Moore v. Hall" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court on appeal in this case was the meaning of the term "regularly residing" as used in Delaware’s alimony statute. The Family Court denied appellant's petition to terminate alimony, finding that appellee and her companion were not permanently or continuously residing together. The trial court focused on the fact that appellee and her companion maintained separate homes, and the absence of evidence as to whether they spent the majority of their free time together. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that that the trial court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating the evidence: (1) the term "regularly residing" means "liv[ing] together with some degree of continuity . . . .;" (2) the fact that appellee and her companion were retirees did not change the analysis of whether they were regularly residing together; and (3) two people may be regularly residing together even though they maintain separate homes. View "Paul v. Paul" on Justia Law

A father appealed a Family Court judge's termination of his parental rights. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to reaffirm that intentional abandonment requires a finding that the parent had a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims. In this case, the Court held that the record supported the judge's holding that the father abandoned his son and that termination was in the child's best interests. View "Teachem v. Terry" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court was the proper standard to apply when a fit parent petitions to rescind a guardianship. "Parental rights are fundamental liberties, protected by the State and Federal Constitutions. Fit parents, therefore, are entitled to a presumption that returning their children to their care and custody is in the children’s best interests." The Supreme Court held that the guardianship must be terminated at the request of a fit parent unless the guardian proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the children will suffer physical or emotional harm if the guardianship is terminated. The Family Court found that Appellant’s child would not be dependent or neglected if returned to her custody. Thus, Appellant was a fit parent. The Family Court also found that the child would be happy living with appellant and that there was no concern about domestic violence. Based on this record, the presumption in favor of Appellant was unrebutted. Thus, as a matter of law Appellant’s petition to rescind the guardianship and her petition for custody of her son was due to be granted. View "Tourison v. Pepper" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Vanessa Wright appealed a Family Court decision that awarded alimony to Respondent-Appellee David Wright as a result of divorce proceedings. On appeal, Wife contended that: (1) the Family Court abused its discretion and violated her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 1 of the Delaware Constitution by reducing her tithing when calculating her monthly expenses; and (2) the Family Court erred in its analysis under title 13, section 1512(c) of the Delaware Code by reducing the Husband's earning capacity calculation, and thus requiring the Wife to pay more in alimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that both of the Wife's arguments were without merit. View "Wright v. Wright" on Justia Law

Scott and Vanessa Clark married on July 23, 2003 and had two children. After Father and Mother separated, Mother sought sole custody of the children. The trial judge gave joint custody to Mother and Father. Mother advanced three arguments on appeal: (1) joint custody was improper because Father was subject to an order of guardianship, (2) the findings of fact in the best interests of the child analysis were clearly erroneous, and (3) the delayed implementation of the final order constituted error. Although the Supreme Court concluded after its review of the record that this case was "a close abuse of discretion" case, it nevertheless affirmed the trial court, finding Mother did not preserve the issue of guardianship for appeal, and that the evidence on record still supported the trial court's decisions. View "Clark v. Clark" on Justia Law

Scott and Vanessa Clark married on July 23, 2003 and had two children. After Father and Mother separated, Mother sought sole custody of the children. The trial judge gave joint custody to Mother and Father. Mother raised three arguments on appeal of that decision: (1) joint custody is improper because Father was subject to an order of guardianship, (2) the findings of fact in the best interests of the child analysis were clearly erroneous, and (3) the delayed implementation of the final order constituted error. "Although this [was] a close abuse of discretion case," after its review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Clark v. Clark" on Justia Law

Father filed a motion to modify a child custody and visitation agreement in the Family Court in order to travel with his three children to certain countries. The trial judge denied father's motion, holding that contract principles governed the agreement and barred the trial court from modifying unambiguous contract language. On appeal, the father claimed that the trial judge erroneously applied contract principles to a custody and visitation agreement instead of applying the best interest of the child test as required under 13 Del. C. 722. Since the modification requested here should have been reviewed under the best interest of the child test, the court reversed and remanded. View "Morrisey v. Morrisey" on Justia Law

Mother appealed from a final judgment of the Family Court that terminated her parental rights in her now three-year-old child. Mother raised two arguments on appeal: (1) the Family Court erred, by shifting the burden of proof from the DFS to her, at the termination of parental rights hearing; and (2) the Family Court's factual determination that mother failed to plan for the child was clearly erroneous and not sufficiently supported by the record. The court held that the record reflected that the Family Court properly placed the burden of proof on DFS throughout the termination proceedings and mother had failed to show that the Family Court's "failure to plan" determination was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, concluding that mother's arguments were without merit, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Long v. DFS & Office of Child Advocate" on Justia Law

Wife appealed from a Family Court final judgment in favor of Husband, arising from Husband's Petition to Modify Alimony and the Wife's Motion for Specific Performance and Rule to Show Cause. On appeal, Wife contended that the Family Court erred when it reformed the parties' Marital Property Settlement Agreement to provide that alimony payments would terminate upon the Wife's cohabitation. The court held that the Family Court properly held that the Agreement was unconscionable and subject to reformation where the record supported the Family Court's factual findings of overreaching and unfairness. View "Stewart v. Stewart" on Justia Law