Case Title: Burton v. Burton

Citation: 

Docket Number: 558, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
DONALD J. BURTON,                      
           
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
BETTY H. BURTON, 
     
 
 
     
Respondent Below- 
Appellee, and 
 
OFFICE OF THE COURT 
APPOINTED SPECIAL 
ADVOCATE, 
 
 
Appellee.
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 558, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Family Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Sussex County  
   File No. CS94-3107 
   Petition No. 02-34657                   
 
Submitted:  May 16, 2005 
   Decided:  July 19, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R1 
 
 
This 19th day of July 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the Office of the Court Appointed Special Advocate’s (“CASA’s”) 
motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) or, in the 
                                                 
1 The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties and their minor child.  Supr. Ct. 
R. 7(d). 
 
 
-2-
alternative, to affirm the judgment of the Family Court pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a),2 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Donald J. Burton (“Father”), filed an appeal 
from the Family Court’s November 30, 2004 order granting sole custody and 
primary placement of Hanna, the parties’ minor child, to Mother and permitting 
Father therapeutic visitation.3  In conjunction with his appeal, Father also requests 
this Court to issue a writ of prohibition preventing the Family Court from 
exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction.   
 
(2) 
The Rules of this Court direct all parties to order a transcript and to 
include in their appendix those portions of the record that are relevant to any 
claims on appeal.  In this appeal, Father, as the appellant, had the burden of 
producing “such portions of the trial transcript as are necessary to give this Court a 
fair and accurate account of the context in which the claim of error occurred” and 
the record “must include a transcript of all evidence relevant to the challenged 
finding or conclusion.”4   
                                                 
2 At the direction of this Court, appellee Betty H. Burton (“Mother”) filed responses to CASA’s 
motions.  In her responses, Mother stated that she supported the motions. 
3 “Therapeutic visitation” consists of visitation between parent and child under the supervision of 
a counselor or psychologist.  The Family Court’s order was issued following a two-day hearing 
on November 29 and 30, 2004.  
4 Supr. Ct. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e). 
 
 
-3-
 
(3) 
Father’s failure to provide the transcripts of the Family Court hearing 
precludes appellate review of his claim that the Family Court committed error 
and/or abused its discretion by awarding sole custody of Hanna to Mother and 
granting him therapeutic visitation.  Father’s claim must, therefore, be dismissed.   
 
(4) 
Even if we were to grant Father’s request to decide this appeal on the 
basis of the remaining Family Court record, Father still would not prevail.  
Assuming all facts recited in the Family Court’s November 30, 2004 order to be 
correct, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the Family 
Court in fashioning the order it did.5   
 
(5) 
In the absence of any factual support for Father’s claim that the 
Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction, we hereby deny his petition for a writ of 
prohibition.  
 
(6) 
Father also filed several motions in conjunction with his appeal---a 
motion to prevent his attorney from withdrawing his appearance, a motion to 
dismiss Mother’s attorney because of a conflict of interest, a motion to compel the 
Family Court to “surrender” transcripts of all testimony supporting its rulings, and 
a motion for a mandatory injunction.  We find no appropriate factual or legal 
support for any of these motions and, therefore, hereby deny them. 
                                                 
5 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979); Solis v. Tea, 468 
A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983).   
 
 
-4-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: Father’s appeal is 
DISMISSED; Father’s petition for a writ of prohibition is DENIED; and Father’s 
motions are DENIED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice