Case Title: Simpson v. Simpson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 550, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLOTTE L. SIMPSON,1 
 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MATTHEW R. SIMPSON, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 550, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK05-01326 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 11, 2007 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: July 18, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of July 2007, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, 
the appellee’s motion to strike,2 and the record below, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Charlotte Simpson (“Mother”), filed this appeal 
from a decision of the Family Court granting sole custody of the parties’ 
three minor children to the appellee, Matthew Simpson (“Father”).  We find 
                                                 
1 The Court has assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 7(d). 
2 Father filed a motion to strike certain references and materials contained in 
Mother’s reply brief and appendix.  To the extent the challenged materials were not part 
of the record below, the Court did not consider the materials in its consideration of the 
merits of this appeal. 
 
2
no error or abuse in the Family Court’s decision.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
Family Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
Although the Table of Contents to Mother’s opening brief 
enumerates three issues to be argued on appeal, the substance of the brief 
does not follow the Table of Contents and does not contain any discernible 
argument related to those three issues.  The substance of the brief also does 
not contain a single citation to any legal authority.  Construing Mother’s 
brief broadly, she appears to argue that the Family Court erred: (i) in not 
properly analyzing the “best interest” factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722(a); 
(ii) in accepting the testimony of the psychologist; and (iii) in refusing to 
allow an alternating residential placement for the children. 
(3) 
The scope of this Court’s review of a Family Court judgment 
includes a review of both law and facts.3  If the Family Court correctly 
applied the law, we review under an abuse of discretion standard.4  The 
Family Court’s factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal if they are 
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical 
deductive process.5  When the determination of facts turns on the credibility 
                                                 
3 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
4 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186-87 (Del. 1991). 
5 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
 
3
of the witnesses who testified under oath before the trial judge, this Court 
will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial judge.6 
(4) 
The record in this case reflects that the Family Court reviewed 
all of the factors relevant to performing a best interest analysis under 13 Del. 
C. § 722(a) and included substantial citation to evidence in the record 
bearing on each factor.  After considering the relevant evidence and 
analyzing the § 722(a) factors, the Family Court concluded that granting 
Father sole custody was in the children’s best interests.  Among other 
reasons, the Family Court noted that the two eldest children represented to 
the Court that Mother was abusive to them and that their relationship with 
her is unstable and unhealthy. Moreover, the children have lived with Father 
since 2005, have adjusted well to their living arrangements, and enjoy a 
loving and stable relationship with Father.  The Court further noted that 
Mother had not participated in supervised visitation with the children since 
March 2006.  The Court also noted that joint custody was not appropriate 
because, in order to be successful, joint custody requires good 
communication between the parents, which did not exist between Mother 
and Father in this case.   
                                                 
6 Wife (J.F.V) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
 
4
(5) 
Under the circumstances, we find that the Family Court 
correctly applied the law.  Moreover, the trial judge’s factual findings are 
supported by the record and were the product of an orderly and logical 
deductive process.  We find no abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s 
conclusion that sole custody with Father was in the children’s best interests. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice