Case Title: Parson v. Parson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 527, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2002-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
1The Court has assigned pseudonyms to the parties in this case.  SUPR. CT. R. 7(d).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MILTON PARSON,1
Petitioner/Cross Respondent
Below-Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE PARSON,
Respondent/Cross Petitioner
Below-Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 527, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Family Court
§  of the State of Delaware
§  in and for Kent County
§  File No. CK01-03138
§  Petition No. 01-06464
§
Submitted: February 8, 2002
  Decided:   March 19, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 19th day of March 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal
and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, Milton Parson (“Father”), filed this
appeal from the Family Court’s September 24, 2001 order, which provided
for primary residential placement of the parties’ two minor children with
2While the Family Court’s order contained a number of other rulings, this ruling
was the only one from which an appeal was taken.
3Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983).
4Id.
-2-
Charlotte Parson (“Mother”).2  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly,
we AFFIRM.
(2)
The parties filed cross-petitions for custody of their two minor
children, Christine, born August 9, 1991, and Mary, born December 17,
1992.  The Family Court held a hearing on the parties’ cross-petitions and, on
September 24, 2001, issued its order awarding legal custody of the two minor
children to Mother and Father jointly, with primary residential placement with
Mother and visitation with Father.   
(3)
Our standard of review of a decision of the Family Court extends
to a review of the facts and law, as well as inferences and deductions made by
the trial judge.3  If the trial court has correctly applied the pertinent law, our
review is limited to abuse of discretion.  We will not substitute our opinion for
the findings of the trial judge where those findings are supported by the record
and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.4  In a case
such as this where residential placement is at issue, Delaware law requires the
5DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13, § 722(a).
6In the alternative, Father asks that he have the children “for all breaks and all
summer vacation”, if residential placement remains with Mother.
7As the appellant, Father was required to provide this Court with the appropriate
factual support for his arguments.  SUPR. CT. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e).
8Slater v. State, 606 A.2d 1334, 1336-37 (Del. 1992).
9The Family Court based its custody decision on facts that appear to be largely
undisputed between the parties.
-3-
Family Court to render its decision in accordance with the child’s best
interests.5 
(4)
In his appeal, Father essentially requests this Court to re-weigh
the “best interests of the child” factors and determine that the parties’ children
should have primary residential placement with him.  He suggests that more
weight should be accorded the fact that both children wish to reside with him.6
Father did not provide a copy of the transcript of the trial to this Court.7  To
the extent that Father’s appeal is based upon any dispute of fact that would be
revealed only by reviewing the transcript, we have no adequate basis for
evaluating any such claims.8  To the extent that Father’s appeal is based upon
undisputed facts,9 we observe that the September 24, 2001 decision of the
Family Court properly reviewed and considered all of the “best interests of the
child” factors.  The Family Court noted that the children expressed a
10Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d at 1279.
-4-
preference for residing with Father, but attributed the preference to Father’s
more permissive parenting style.  In the end, the Family Court decided that
the children would  reside primarily with Mother because she has “the more
structured home.”  On the record before us, we can not conclude that the
Family Court either abused its discretion or committed legal error in so
deciding.10      
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Family Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice