Case Title: Williams v. Thomas

Citation: 

Docket Number: 345-2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-11-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ANNE WILLIAMS,! §
§ No. 345, 2015
Respondent Below- §
Appellant, i
§ Court Below—Family Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
DARREN THOMAS and § inand for New Castle County
LAUREN SMITH, § File No. CN10-06153
§ Pet. No, 14-32739
Petitioner Below- §
Appellee. §

Submitted: September 18, 2015
Decided: November 13, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and VALIHURA, Justices.
ORDER
This 13% day of November 2015, upon consideration of the opening
brief and the record below,? it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Anne Williams (“the Mother”), filed this appeal

from an order of the Family Court granting a petition for third-party

 

visitation filed by the appellees, Darren Thomas and Lauren Smith, who are

the paternal grandfather and step-grandmother (“the Paternal Grandparents”)

' The Court has assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(4).
The appellees did not file an answering brief.
of the Mother's son, who was born July 26, 2009, We find no merit to the
Mother's appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Family Court.

(2) The record reflects that the Paternal Grandparents filed a
petition for visitation on December 1, 2014. The Mother filed an answer on
December 12, 2014, The Family Court held a call of the calendar on March
27, 2015 to address scheduling matters on both the Paternal Grandparents’
petition for visitation and on a separate petition filed by the Mother
requesting a modification of custody. The Mother did not appear, although
the Family Court noted that the Mother’s mother had sought a continuance
of the March 27 hearing on the Mother's behalf due to “an unforeseen

emergency.” The Family Court entered an order dated April 1, 2015, which

 

‘granted alternating weekend visitation to the Paternal Grandparents on an
interim basis and ordered the Mother to provide a written explanation for her
failure to appear at the March 27 hearing. The Family Court also
scheduled a heating on the Patemal Grandparents’ petition for visitation for
June 1, 2015.

(3) The Mother did not appear for the June 1, 2015 hearing. On
June 5, 2015, the Family Court entered an order granting the petition for
third-party visitation, awarding the Patemal Grandparents visitation with the
child every other week during the summer break and every other weekend

2
during the school year. In awarding visitation, the Family Court concluded
that visitation was in the child’s best interests because the Paternal
Grandfather had been the child’s legal guardian and had participated in
raising the child on a daily basis until shortly before the petition was filed.

(4) The Mother appeals that judgment. The only issue the Mother
raises in her opening brief on appeal is a claim that she “was not given any
petition or court date for this matter.”

(5) We find no merit to Mother’s assertion that she was never
notified of the Paternal Grandparents’ petition or of the scheduled hearing.
‘The record reflects that the Mother, in fact, filed an answer to the petition for
visitation on December 12, 2014. The record also reflects that the Family
Court's April 1, 2015 order, which granted interim visitation and scheduled
4 hearing on the petition for visitation on June 1, 2015, was sent to the
‘Mother at the address that she previously had provided to the Court. In light

of this record, we find no support for Mother's contention that she did not

 

receive proper notice of the petition or hearing.? In the absence of any error
or abuse by the Family Court, we conclude that the Family Court’s June 5,

2015 order must be upheld.

3 Walker v. Martin, 2012 WL. 4880091 (Del. Oct. 15, 2012).
3
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Family Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

(sl Randy J. Holland

Justice