Case Title: Taylor v. Forrester

Citation: 

Docket Number: 336, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HELEN TAYLOR, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
WARREN F. FORRESTER, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 336, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  File No. CS04-01540 
§  Petition No. 04-16683 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 31, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 12, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R1  
 
 
This 12th day of June 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the record below,2 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, Helen Taylor (“Mother”), filed an 
appeal from the Family Court’s June 21, 2005 order establishing a visitation 
schedule for the parties’ minor son, Kirby.  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
                                                 
1 The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties and their minor child.  
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 Because the petitioner-appellee, Warren F. Forrester (“Father”), did not submit an 
answering brief, this Court ordered that the appeal would be decided solely on the basis 
of the appellant’s opening brief and the Family Court record.   
 
2
 
(2) 
In May 2004, Mother filed a petition in the Family Court 
seeking sole custody and residential placement of Kirby, born March 29, 
2004.  At the November 2004 pretrial hearing, Father conceded that Mother 
should be granted sole custody and residential placement.   
 
(3) 
In April 2005, the Family Court issued a protection from abuse 
(“PFA”) order prohibiting Father from contacting Mother.  On June 21, 
2005, the Family Court held a hearing to determine Father’s visitation rights.  
Mother and Father both appeared at the hearing.  As of that date, the PFA 
order had expired.  The following evidence was presented at the hearing. 
 
(4) 
A couple of months after Mother filed her May 2004 custody 
petition, Father was incarcerated.  At the time of the hearing in June 2005, 
Father was living in a Level IV facility where he was completing the Crest 
Program.3  Father testified that he would complete the Crest Program in 
October 2005, then be placed in Aftercare for an additional six months, and, 
finally, be moved to Work Release.  Depending upon his progress in Work 
Release, he might be able to return home on leave for short periods of time.  
At the time of the hearing, Father had not seen Kirby for approximately 11 
months.  Mother and Father explained that this was because a prison 
counselor had recommended that Kirby not be brought to the prison facility.   
                                                 
3 The Crest Program seeks to assist inmates with drug and alcohol problems and with 
transitioning to life outside prison. 
 
3
 
(5) 
Mother testified that, while she did not want Father to have 
visitation while he was incarcerated, she did not oppose supervised visitation 
at her residence.  The Family Court reviewed Father’s criminal record, 
noting that it included convictions of Unlawful Imprisonment, Driving 
Under the Influence of Alcohol, Possessing a Destructive Weapon, and 
Harassment.  Father testified that his convictions were the result of a “real 
bad alcohol problem,” which had been resolved.  The Family Court warned 
Father that, if he did not maintain a clean record, he would forfeit visitation 
with Kirby.  Father represented that he would begin to catch up on his child 
support obligation as soon as he found employment.  The Family Court 
noted that, because of Mother’s work schedule and Father’s intention to get 
a job where he would work Monday through Saturday, Sunday would be the 
best day for Father to begin visitation with Kirby.   
 
(6) 
Stating that it would be in Kirby’s best interest for him to get to 
know his father and for Father to begin to take responsibility for Kirby’s 
care, the Family Court established the following visitation schedule.  Once 
Father is placed on Work Release, he will be allowed to visit with Kirby 
from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. on those Sundays when he has privileges to 
leave the facility.  The visitation will take place at Mother’s home and under 
Mother’s supervision.  Once Father is in Aftercare, he will have visitation 
 
4
under Mother’s supervision for increasing periods of time and then will be 
permitted visitation without Mother’s supervision.  Once Father has 
successfully completed this part of the visitation plan, he will be entitled to 
have Kirby three week-ends a month from 6:00 p.m. on Saturday until 6:00 
p.m. on Sunday.  The Family Court also included as part of the visitation 
plan a number of general rules governing drop-off and pick-up, major 
holidays, and emergencies, among other things.  The Family Court 
specifically ordered that, at no time during visitation, shall Father be under 
the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol.   
 
(7) 
This Court reviews the Family Court’s application of the law to 
the facts and the sufficiency of evidence supporting its findings for an abuse 
of discretion.4  This Court will not disturb the Family Court’s factual 
findings unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be 
overturned.5  Finally, this Court will not substitute its own factual findings 
for the inferences and deductions made by the Family Court when they are 
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical 
reasoning process.6 
                                                 
4 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.M.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
 
5
 
(8) 
We find no basis upon which to overturn the visitation schedule 
established by the Family Court in this case.  In designing the plan, the 
Family Court explored Father’s past criminal record and his progress on 
probation in detail, set up a graduated schedule that would permit Mother to 
monitor Father’s performance, and explicitly warned Father that he would 
forfeit his visitation unless he maintained a clean record.  The Family Court 
also noted that, if Mother observed any problems with Father’s performance, 
she would have the right to file an emergency petition.  While Mother claims 
that unsupervised visitation with Father will endanger Kirby, we find that 
the Family Court’s visitation plan is carefully designed to avoid such 
problems.   We further find that the purpose of the plan---i.e. to assist Father 
and Kirby to gradually get to know one another and to afford Father 
increasing responsibility for Kirby’s care, is a rational one, which is 
supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.           
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice