Case Title: Grant v. Grant

Citation: 

Docket Number: 604, 2008

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS A. GRANT,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RHONDA J. GRANT, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 604, 2008 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK01-04853 
§  Petition Nos. 08-06438  
§  and 08-10361 
 
Submitted:  July 31, 2009 
Decided:  September 18, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of September 2009, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Thomas Grant (Father), filed this appeal from a 
decision issued by the Family Court resolving the parties’ cross-petitions to 
modify custody.  The Family Court’s decision awarded Father and the 
appellee, Rhonda Grant (Mother), joint custody of their two children with 
shared residential placement with time spent equally between the parties on 
a schedule to be mutually agreed upon between them.  The Court further 
                                                 
1 The Court assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
7(d). 
 
2
ordered that Mother share her time with her parents and that the parties’ 
children should be enrolled in counseling.  After careful consideration of the 
parties’ respective contentions on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in 
the Family Court’s judgment.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
(2) 
The record below reflects that, upon their separation, the parties 
entered into a consent order with respect to the custody of their two children.  
The consent order, dated August 12, 2002, provided that the parties’ would 
have joint custody of their then four-year-old son and three-year-old 
daughter with shared residential placement.  Prior to the parties’ separation, 
Mother had stayed at home with the children while Father worked.  In 
September 2003, Father and the children moved in with the maternal 
grandparents.  In April 2004, Father, who had a career in the military, 
received orders that took him out of Delaware and then overseas for the next 
three and a half years.  During that time, he kept in frequent contact with the 
children, returning to Delaware when he could and having them visit with 
him in the summer. 
(3) 
The testimony at the hearing reflected that, while Father lived 
away, the children resided primarily with their maternal grandparents due to 
Mother’s work schedule.  Father would send money each month to the 
grandparents as support for the children. Although Father appears to dispute 
 
3
it, Mother and the maternal grandmother both testified that Mother was with 
children when she was not working and also provided money to her parents 
for the children’s support.  Father returned to Delaware and retired from his 
career in the military in December 2007.  In February 2008, Mother filed an 
emergency petition for custody.2  In March 2008, Father filed a cross-
petition for custody.  During the hearing, Mother, Father, the maternal 
grandmother, Mother’s sister, and Father’s fiancé all testified.  The Family 
Court also interviewed both children, ages eleven and ten, respectively.  
Both children told the Family Court that they wished to spend time equally 
with both Mother and Father, as they had been doing, and that they wanted 
to continue to spend time their maternal grandparents.   
(4) 
At the end of the hearing, the judge announced her decision on 
the parties’ cross-petitions in open court.  After going through each of the 
best interest factors,3 the Court determined that it was in the children’s best 
                                                 
2 In October 2008, at the start of the hearing on the parties’ cross-petitions for 
custody, Mother indicated that she wished to withdraw her petition for full custody.  She 
stated that, in the intervening months since she had filed her petition, the shared custody 
arrangement had improved and that she wished to retain join custody with shared 
residential placement. 
3 In determining the best interest of the children in custody matters, 13 Del. C. § 
722(a) directs the Family Court to consider all relevant factors, including: (i) the wishes 
of the parents; (ii) the wishes of the children; (iii) the interaction of the children with the 
parents, grandparents and others living in the household; (iv) the children’s adjustment to 
their home, school, and community; (v) the mental and physical health of all involved 
persons; (vi) past and present compliance of the parents with their responsibilities under 
13 Del. C. § 701; and (vii) any evidence of domestic violence. 
 
4
interests for the parties to maintain joint custody with shared residential 
placement.  Given the unique involvement of the maternal grandparents, the 
Court further ordered that Mother share her time with the children with her 
parents.  The trial court also ordered that the children receive counseling. 
(5) 
In his opening brief on appeal, Father contends that the Family 
Court erred by failing to consider the following alleged facts: (i) Mother has 
not been the primary caregiver to the children; (ii) Father took care of the 
children before, during and after his time in the military; (iii) the children do 
not have their own rooms at Mother’s house; and (iv) Mother has to have 
roommates at her house in order to pay her rent.  Father also argues that the 
Family Court erred in failing to order counseling for both the parents and 
grandparents, as well as for the children.  
(6) 
This Court’s standard and scope of review of an appeal from 
the Family Court extends to a review of the facts and law as well as to a 
review of the inferences and deductions made by the trial judge.4  We will 
not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong, and we will affirm 
the inferences and deductions of the trial court if they are supported by the 
record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.5  
                                                 
4 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
5 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
 
5
(7) 
Upon review of the record in this case, we find no error in the 
Family Court’s application of the best interests of the children standard.  We 
are satisfied that the findings made by the Family Court are sufficiently 
supported by the record, and are the product of a logical and orderly 
deductive process.  Consequently, we find that the judgment of the Family 
Court should be affirmed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice