Case Title: Foster v. Wood

Citation: 

Docket Number: 331, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-04-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CONNOR FOSTER,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
SERENITY WOOD, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 331, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CK13-02676 
§  Petition No. 22-25791 
§                         
§                         
§   
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  February 23, 2024 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  April 22, 2024 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that:   
(1) 
The appellant, Connor Foster (“Father”), filed this appeal from a 
Family Court order, dated August 11, 2023, denying his petition to modify custody 
(“August 11, 2023 Order”).  We find no merit to Father’s appeal.  Accordingly, we 
affirm the Family Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
Father and the appellee, Serenity Wood (“Mother”), are the parents of 
three children.  After a hearing, the Family Court entered an order, dated May 26, 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).  
2 
 
2022, granting Father and Mother joint legal custody of the children with Mother 
having primary placement of the children as long as she cooperated with the Division 
of Family Services (“May 26, 2022 Order”).  The Family Court granted Father bi-
weekly, supervised visitation at the Visitation Center.  If he obtained a mental health 
evaluation as required by his case plan with the Division of Family Services, Father 
could have visitation with the children at the paternal grandmother’s home every 
other weekend.  The May 26, 2022 Order also included a referral form to the 
Visitation Center.  Neither party appealed the May 26, 2022 Order.   
(3) 
On December 5, 2022, the Father filed a petition to modify custody.  He 
alleged that he was moving out of Delaware and sought to have custody of the 
children on the weekend.  He also filed a motion for interim relief, requesting that 
the Family Court establish a schedule where he could pick up the children at the 
Visitation Center.  He stated that he had not seen the children since January 2022. 
(4) 
Mother opposed both motions, contending that Father had never visited 
the children at the Visitation Center after issuance of the May 26, 2022 Order.  
Mother also alleged, upon information and belief, that Father had not obtained a 
mental health evaluation.  The Family Court denied Father’s motion for interim 
relief, stating that Father had to contact the Visitation Center to set up his visitation 
with the children.   
3 
 
(5) 
After a case management conference on August 10, 2023, the Family 
Court denied Father’s petition.  Because the May 26, 2022 Custody Order was 
entered after a full hearing on the merits and Father filed the petition for custody 
modification within two years of entry of the May 26, 2022 Custody Order, the 
Family Court found that Father was required to satisfy the higher standard under 13 
Del. C. § 729(c)(1) and had not done so.2  The Family Court also noted that Father 
had not moved to New Jersey and that there was no change in circumstances 
justifying modification.  This appeal followed. 
(6) 
This Court’s review of a Family Court decision includes a review of 
both the law and the facts.3  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.4  Factual 
findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.5  On 
appeal, Father challenges various aspects of the May 26, 2022 Order.  Father did not 
appeal the May 26, 2022 Order and cannot belatedly seek reversal of that decision 
in this appeal.6   
 
2 Section 729(c)(1) requires a movant to show “continuing enforcement of the prior order may 
endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair such child’s emotional development.”  
This section applies when a movant seeks modification of custody or the child’s residence within 
two years of a prior order concerning custody or primary residence that was entered after a full 
hearing on the merits.  Hill v. Fox, 2024 WL 566073, at *3-4 (Del. Feb. 12, 2024) (explaining the 
different standards applicable to petitions for modification of prior Family Court orders). 
3 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
4 Id.  
5 Id.  
6 See, e.g., Stone v. Smith, 2023 WL 4994518, at *2 (Del. Aug. 3, 2023) (Del. Aug. 3, 2023) (“As 
a preliminary matter, the Mother has waived any arguments relating to the proceedings that led to 
the entry of the Custody Order because she failed to appeal that order.”); Grant v. Day¸ 2023 WL 
4 
 
(7) 
Although Father makes no arguments concerning the August 11, 2023 
Order on appeal, it appears that his petition to modify custody sought modification 
of the visitation portions of the May 26, 2022 Order, not modification of the custody 
or residence provisions of that order.  “An order concerning visitation may be 
modified at any time if the best interests of the child would be served thereby in 
accordance with standards set forth in § 728(a) of this title.”7   Under § 728(a), the 
Family Court determines visitation “consistent with the child’s best interests and 
maturity, which is designed to permit and encourage the child to have frequent and 
meaningful contact with both parents unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that 
contact of the child with 1 parent would endanger the child’s physical health or 
significantly impair his or her emotional development.”8  The best-interest factors 
are set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722(a).9  Given Father’s failure to have any supervised 
visitation with the children at the Visitation Center in accordance with the May 26, 
2022 Order, his continued residence in Delaware, and his apparent failure to obtain 
a mental health evaluation, he did not show that increasing his bi-weekly, supervised 
 
4446661, at *2 (Del. July 10, 2023) (holding the appellant could not relitigate a decision she had 
failed to appeal). 
7 13 Del. C. § 729(a). 
8 13 Del. C. § 728(a). 
9 The § 722 factors include: (i) the wishes of the parents; (ii) the wishes of the child; (iii) the 
interaction of the child with his parents, relatives and any other residents of the household; (iv) the 
child’s adjustment to his home, school, and community; (v) the mental and physical health of all 
individuals involved; (vi) past and present compliance of the parents with their rights and 
responsibilities to their child; (vii) evidence of domestic violence; and (viii) the criminal history 
of any party or any other resident of the household. 
5 
 
visitation to weekly, unsupervised visitation was in the children’s best interests.  
Accordingly, the Family Court’s denial of Father’s petition is affirmed.            
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Chief Justice