Case Title: Fox v. Huffman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 125, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JACK FOX,1  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KATIE HUFFMAN, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 125, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  File No. CS00-04188 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 14, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 8, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 8th day of September 2009, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Jack Fox (“Father”), filed an appeal 
from the Family Court’s February 11, 2009 order denying his petition for 
visitation with the parties’ minor child, Sara.2  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated March 11, 
2009.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 On July 9, 2009, the parties were notified by the Court that, because the respondent-
appellee, Katie Huffman (“Mother”), had failed to file an answering brief, the appeal 
would be decided on the basis of Father’s opening brief and appendix as well as the 
Family Court record.   
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Father is an inmate incarcerated at the 
Sussex Correctional Institution in Georgetown, Delaware.  He was convicted 
of five counts of Rape in the First Degree and one count of Endangering the 
Welfare of a Child.  He currently is serving Level V sentences in connection 
with those convictions, with an expected release date of 2121, and is a 
registered sex offender.3  The victim with regard to the rape conviction was 
Mother and the victim with regard to the endangering conviction was Sara.  
Father’s sentencing order forbids any contact with Mother, but does not 
explicitly forbid contact with Sara. 
 
(3) 
On April 17, 2008, Father filed a petition for visitation in the 
Family Court.  In the petition, Father stated that visitation would allow him 
to maintain a father-daughter relationship with Sara and requested that he be 
allowed to correspond with Sara and have her visit with him at the prison 
every three months.4  On May 22, 2008, Mother filed an answer to Father’s 
visitation petition.  In her answer, Mother stated that Sara did not wish to 
visit with Father at the prison and that the situation with Father upsets her.  
Attached to the answer is a note, purportedly written by Sara, explaining that 
visitation at the prison would be too upsetting for her.   
                                                 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §4120 et seq. 
4 Father also requested permission to proceed on his visitation petition in forma pauperis.  
The Family Court granted Father’s request on April 23, 2008. 
 
3
 
(4) 
On October 30, 2008, the Clerk of the Family Court made a 
written recommendation that Father’s petition be dismissed because he had 
failed to submit a Parent Education Certificate within 180 days of the filing 
of the petition.5  A Family Court Commissioner signed the recommendation 
as an order on November 3, 2008.  On January 15, 2009, Father filed a letter 
in the Family Court objecting to the dismissal of his visitation petition.  
Father stated that he never received notice that he needed to file a Parent 
Education Certificate.  He also stated that he had a copy of a letter the 
Mental Health Director at the prison had written to the Family Court 
outlining the programs he had attended.  He asked for his “fair day” in court 
to show the Family Court his certificates.   
 
(5) 
On January 20, 2009, the Family Court, deeming Father’s letter 
to be a motion to reopen, reinstated Father’s visitation petition and 
scheduled a hearing on February 11, 2009, so that Father could demonstrate 
that he had completed courses in prison that would satisfy the Family 
Court’s requirement of completion of a Parent Education Program.  
Although Father has not submitted a transcript of the February 11, 2009, 
                                                 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §1507(h); Fam. Ct. Civ. Proc. R. 16.2. 
 
4
hearing,6 it appears that the hearing took place as scheduled and that Mother 
and Father both testified.  It also appears that, while Sara was present at the 
courthouse, the Family Court did not require her to testify.   
 
(6) 
In its order dated February 11, 2009, the Family Court outlined 
the basis for its denial of Father’s petition as follows.  Pursuant to Del. Code 
Ann. tit. 13, §728(d), the Family Court must consider the following factors 
prior to permitting visitation at a correctional facility: a) whether the 
incarcerated parent had a substantial and positive relationship with the child 
prior to incarceration; b) the nature of the offense for which the parent 
seeking visitation is incarcerated; c) whether the child was the victim of the 
offense; and d) whether the child seeks a relationship with the incarcerated 
parent.  Pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §724A(c), where the parent is a 
sex offender and the child is a victim, a certified mental health professional 
must testify that visitation would be in the best interests of the child.  The 
Family Court observed that, while Father apparently had a positive 
relationship with Sara prior to his incarceration, Mother testified that Sara 
did not wish to have visitation with Father.  Ultimately, in the absence of 
                                                 
6 In his notice of appeal, Father states that a transcript of the hearing is not required for 
this Court to consider the issues he raises on appeal.  We have concluded that assertion is 
incorrect. 
 
5
expert testimony regarding whether visitation would be in Sara’s best 
interests, the Family Court denied Father’s visitation petition. 
 
(7) 
In this appeal, Father claims that the Family Court improperly 
failed to provide the Mental Health Director of the prison an opportunity to 
testify on his behalf.  Father argues that, because he was not provided proper 
notice of the hearing, he could not inform his “expert” of the date and time 
of the hearing.  Father also claims that the Family Court improperly refused 
to allow him to question Sara at the hearing and improperly refused to admit 
the program attendance certificates he had earned while in prison into 
evidence.   
 
(8) 
The record provided to this Court in an appeal must include a 
transcript of all evidence relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion.7  
In this case, Father, as the appellant, had the burden of providing this Court 
with a transcript of those portions of the Family Court proceedings, 
including the February 11, 2009 hearing, relevant to his appeal.  A civil 
litigant does not have an absolute right to a copy of a transcript at State 
expense.8  Even an appellant who is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, 
such as Father, is required to make his own financial arrangements to obtain 
                                                 
7 Tricoche v. State, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987); Supr. Ct. R. 9(e)(ii) and 14(e). 
8 Lynch v. McCarron, Del. Supr., No. 352, 1996, Hartnett, J. (Jan. 13, 1997). 
 
6
the necessary transcripts.9  Given Father’s failure to provide this Court with 
the relevant record for review, there is no adequate basis to evaluate his 
claims of error and appellate review is, therefore, precluded.10 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
9 Id. 
10 Slater v. State, 606 A.2d 1334, 1336-37 (Del. 1992).