Case Title: Smith v. Larson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 124, 2006

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID F. SMITH, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
TERRY D. LARSON, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 124, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN01-09216 
§  Petition Nos. 01-25471 
§                        01-28346 
§                        04-03464 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 16, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 3, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R1  
 
 
This third day of April 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, David F. Smith (“Father”), filed an 
appeal from several orders of the Family Court dated April 5, 2005, 
February 3, 2006 and February 17, 2006.  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm.   
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on November 8, 2004, the Family 
Court entered a final order granting joint residential and legal custody to 
                                                 
1 The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties and their minor child.  
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
2
Father and respondent-appellee, Terry D. Larson (“Mother”).  Since that 
date, Father has filed numerous petitions and motions in the Family Court 
primarily regarding the rearing and schooling of the parties’ minor child, 
Diana.    
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Father claims that the Family Court abused its 
discretion, violated his due process rights, and demonstrated bias in several 
orders, copies of which were attached to Father’s notice of appeal.  Those 
orders are as follows: a) an April 5, 2005 order denying Father’s motion for 
an emergency order permitting him to enroll Diana in school; b) a February 
3, 2006 order denying as moot Father’s motions for correction of record and 
for reconsideration of a previous visitation order; c) a February 17, 2006 
order requiring Mother to return to Father any of Father’s medical 
information in her possession; d) a February 17, 2006 order denying Father’s 
motion regarding summer visitation; and e) a February 17, 2006 order 
denying Father’s motion for payment of attorney’s fees.2    
 
(4) 
 This Court’s review of appeals from the Family Court extends 
to a review of the facts and the law as well as to a review of the inferences 
and deductions made by the judge.3  This Court will not disturb findings of 
                                                 
2 For purposes of simplicity, and for purposes of this Order only, we assume that Father’s 
appeal is neither untimely nor interlocutory as it pertains to any of those orders. 
3 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
 
3
fact unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be 
overturned.4  If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, the standard 
of review is abuse of discretion.5  Errors of law are reviewed de novo.6   
 
(5) 
We have reviewed each of the orders attached to Father’s notice 
of appeal as well as the orders in the Family Court record to which those 
orders refer.  We find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the 
Family Court judge and no violation of any of Father’s rights.   
 
(6) 
When faced with a claim of disqualification due to personal 
bias or prejudice towards a party, the judge must engage in a two-part 
analysis.7  Initially, the judge must subjectively find that he or she can hear 
the case free of bias, and then the judge must determine if there is an 
objective appearance of bias sufficient to cast doubt on the judge’s 
impartiality.8  On appeal, the Court must, first, make sure that the judge 
engaged in the subjective test and, second, review the merits of the objective 
test.  The standard of review is abuse of discretion.9   
 
(7) 
The record reflects that the Family Court issued an order on 
March 16, 2006, which denied Father’s motion for reargument of the Family 
                                                 
4 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
5 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186 (Del. 1991). 
6 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 
7 Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381, 384 (Del. 1991). 
8 Id. at 385. 
9 Weber v. State, 547 A.2d 948, 952 (Del. 1988). 
 
4
Court’s February 3, 2006 order, which is one of the orders attached to 
Father’s notice of appeal.  One of the arguments in Father’s motion was that 
the Family Court was biased in its ruling.  Our review of the Family Court’s 
March 16, 2006 order indicates that the judge properly engaged in the two-
part analysis that was required.  Moreover, having carefully reviewed the 
remaining orders attached to Father’s notice of appeal, we find no objective 
indication of bias on the part of the Family Court judge. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice