Case Title: Holmes v. Grant

Citation: 

Docket Number: 265, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JACK S. HOLMES,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ANGELA GRANT, 
 
Respondent Below,  
         Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 265, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CN19-02215 
§  Petition Nos. 21-00648 
§                        21-17141 
§                        21-10929 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  February 10, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  April 3, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the opening brief and the record on appeal, we 
conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family 
Court’s order dated July 18, 2022.  Among other things, the Family Court’s order 
modified the primary residential placement and contact schedule for the parties’ 
youngest child, which had previously been established in a consent order.  The 
Family Court acted within its broad discretion when concluding that the child’s 
primary residence would be with the appellee, that the child would be enrolled in 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
school from the appellee’s address, and in determining the contact schedule.2  
Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous, 
and when the determination of facts turns on a question of the credibility of the 
witnesses appearing before the trial court, we will not substitute our opinion for that 
of the trier of fact.3  To the extent that the appellant argues that the residential 
placement and contact schedule should be altered based on events that have occurred 
since the Family Court entered the order that is the subject of the appeal, that claim 
must be presented to the Family Court in the first instance.4  As to the appellant’s 
claim that the Family Court erred by altering the contact schedule without finding 
that continuing the existing contact schedule “would endanger the child’s physical 
health or significantly impair his or her emotional development” under 13 Del. C. 
§ 728(a), this argument was not presented to the Family Court in the first instance.5  
In any event, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the contact schedule 
 
2 See Vilda v. Vilda, 1992 WL 397462, at *3 (Del. Nov. 13, 1992) (“The crafting of a visitation 
schedule is a matter within the Family Court’s discretion.”). 
3 Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019). 
4 See Price v. Boulden, 2014 WL 3566030, at *2 (Del. July 14, 2014) (“[T]his evidence was not 
available to the Family Court in the first instance, is outside of the record on appeal, and cannot 
properly be considered by this Court.”); Del. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphily, 703 A.2d 1202, 1206 
(Del. 1997) (“It is a basic tenet of appellate practice that an appellate court reviews only matters 
considered in the first instance by a trial court.”). 
5 See DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 8 (“Only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for 
review; provided, however, that when the interests of justice so require, the court may consider 
and determine any question not so presented.”); Duphily, 703 A.2d at 1206. 
3 
 
established by the Family Court does not provide “frequent and meaningful contact” 
between the child and the appellant.6 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Chief Justice 
 
6 See 13 Del. C. § 728(a) (“The Court shall determine, whether the parents have joint legal custody 
of the child or 1 of them has sole legal custody of the child, with which parent the child shall 
primarily reside and a schedule of visitation with the other parent, 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.  The Court shall specifically state in any order denying or restricting a 
parent’s access to a child the facts and conclusions in support of such a denial or restriction.”).