Case Title: Harley v. Brown

Citation: 

Docket Number: 354, 2000

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KAITLIN HARLEY,
§
§  No. 354, 2000
Petitioner-Below,
§
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
§
§  Court Below─Family Court
v.
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
MATTHEW J. BROWN,
§  File No. CN97-07555
§
Respondent Below,
§
Appellee/Cross Appellant.
§
  Submitted:  May 8, 2001
      Decided:  July 17, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices.
This 17th day of July 2001, it appears to the Court that:
1)
This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from separate judgments
entered by the Family Court on June 21, 2000.  The proceeding in the
Family Court included a Rule to Show Cause for Contempt and Petition to
Transfer Primary Residence filed by the Father, respondent-appellee,
Matthew J. Brown (“appellee”), and a Petition to Reopen Custody
Proceeding filed by the Mother, petitioner-appellant, Kaitlin Harley
(“appellant”), under Family Court Civil Rule 60(b).
2)
We begin with the issue raised in the original appeal.  The
appellant moved to reopen proceedings which had been decided initially by
2
a Temporary Order of the Family Court and ultimately resolved by a
Stipulated Order of the parties on September 27, 1999.  The appellant
subsequently retained a different attorney to represent her.  The appellant
contends that the Stipulated Order was entered into by her, “based on
duress, mistake, and ineffective assistance of counsel.”
3)
The Family Court held a hearing on June 6, 2000.  In a
memorandum opinion, the trial judge noted that all parties had been
represented by counsel and had consulted with three psychologists who
specialize in family and children matters before agreeing to the September
1999 Stipulated Order that was approved and entered as a judgment.  The
Family Court denied the appellant’s motion to reopen the judgment that
was entered on the basis of the Stipulated Order.
4)
The Family Court then decided the appellee’s Rule to Show
Cause for Contempt.  The Family Court found the appellant to be in civil
contempt of the September 1999 Stipulated Order.  That finding is not on
appeal.
5)
The cross-appeal challenges the Family Court’s remedy and
order to compel compliance with the Stipulated Order.  After finding the
appellant in contempt of the September Stipulated Order, the Family
3
Court’s remedy was to order a replacement of the psychologist who had
been working with this family.  As part of the June 21, 2000 order, the
Family Court also sua sponte dismissed appellee’s Petition to Transfer
Primary Residence to him.  The Father contends that an appropriate
remedy for a finding of contempt by the Mother should have included a
transfer of primary residence to him, the appellee.  Accordingly, the
appellee’s cross-appeal challenges the Family Court’s limited remedy for
contempt and its summary dismissal of his Petition to Transfer Primary
Residence.
6)
The Father’s motion for reargument in the Family Court
“pointed out that the Petition to Transfer Primary Residence had been filed
in April 2000, that the Family Court had not noticed that the petition was
to be heard on June 6, 2000, that the petition had not been timely
answered, and that due process required notice and hearing.”  The Family
Court denied the Motion to Reargue stating “[T]here is no factual basis for
reargument.”  In response to the cross-appeal, the appellant argues that the
Family Court properly dismissed the Father’s Petition 00-13074 because it
was simply an update of Petition 00-00104, which the Family Court heard
4
and decided on the merits.  The appellant also submits that the Family
Court’s disposition of the contempt proceeding was appropriate.
7)
This Court has carefully considered the briefs filed on behalf
of the parties with regard to the appeal and the cross-appeal.  The record
reflects that the Family Court had the parties and their respective attorneys
before it on June 6, 2000.  Each of the parties was given an opportunity to
be heard on all issues in an effort to completely resolve an emotionally
charged and protracted custody dispute.
8)
This Court has concluded that the Family Court’s rulings on
June 21, 2000 are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.
This Court has determined to the extent that the issues raised on appeal are
factual, the record evidence supports the trial judge’s factual findings.  To
the extent that the errors alleged on appeal are attributed to an abuse of
discretion, the record does not support those assertions.  To the extent that
the issues raised on appeal are legal, they are controlled by settled
Delaware law, which was properly applied.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the
Family Court are AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
5
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice