Case Title: Alexander v. Klase

Citation: 

Docket Number: 231, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PEGGY L. ALEXANDER,
Respondent Below-
Appellant,
v.
CHARLES KLASE,
Petitioner Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 231, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Family Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§  Petition Nos. 00-35149
§                     00-35321
§  File No. CK93-3700
Submitted: September 24, 2001
  Decided:   November 1, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 1st day of November 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The respondent-appellant, Peggy L. Alexander, filed an appeal from
the April 18, 2001 order of the Family Court granting petitioner-appellee Charles
Klase’s motion to modify custody and petition for modification of visitation.  In
its order, the Family Court modified a previous consent order to provide for
primary residential placement of the parties’ two minor children with Klase
rather than with Alexander’s mother, with Klase and Alexander continuing to
2
share joint custody, and established a schedule for Alexander’s visitation with the
children.  Klase has moved to affirm the judgment of the Family Court on the
ground that it is manifest on the face of Alexander’s opening brief that the appeal
is without merit.1  We agree and AFFIRM.
(2)
In this appeal, Alexander claims that: a) she should have been
afforded a transcript of the Family Court hearing at State expense;2 b) the Family
Court incorrectly granted primary residential placement of the children with
Klase rather than with Alexander’s mother; c) the Family Court based its
decision on insufficient and questionable witness testimony; d) she should have
been granted a postponement in order to prepare for the hearing; and e) the
hearing was not fair because Klase was represented by counsel and she was not.
(3)
The record reflects that the hearing took place in the Family Court
on April 17, 2001.  At the time of the hearing, there was a February 1, 1999
consent order in place under which Alexander and Klase shared joint custody of
the children, but the children’s primary residence was with Alexander’s mother.
Several months prior to the hearing, while serving the probationary portion of a
criminal sentence in connection with convictions for theft, forgery and
                                                          
1Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
3
conspiracy, Alexander was found to be in violation of her probation by testing
positive for crack cocaine.  She was re-incarcerated at Level V pending space
availability at Level IV (Crest Program)3.  At the time of the hearing, Alexander
had been placed at Level IV and had approximately three months remaining in
the Crest Program before she was to begin the probationary portion of her
sentence.
(4)
The record further reflects that Klase presented the following
testimony at the hearing.  Sister Ellen Burlack, Director of Religious Education
at Saint Polycarps Church, Smyrna, Delaware, testified that she saw Klase and
his children regularly at church and that he was a caring and responsible father.
Father Ralph L. Martin, a Catholic priest and pastor at Saint Polycarps Church,
testified that he had known Klase for three years, that Klase had adopted
Catholicism as a way of providing direction and structure to his own life and the
lives of his children, and that he was a loving father to his children.  Tracy Lynn
Ballock testified that she taught the parties’ son at Saint Polycarps Church, that
she had observed the children with their father and that they had a good
relationship with him and his fiancee.  Klase’s co-worker, Frederick N. Schaefer,
                                                                                                                                                                                          
2This claim is moot following this Court’s August 20, 2001 request to the Family Court to
provide a transcript of the hearing at State expense and the filing of that transcript on
September 24, 2001.
4
III, also testified.  He stated that Klase used to have problems with addiction, but
had changed his life and had become a good father.  Susan H. Hiscock testified
that she was a friend of the Klase family, that she was aware of Alexander’s drug
use and that Klase tried to be a good father.
(5)
Thelma J. Koffich, Klase’s fiancee, testified that she and Klase were
taking marriage classes at Saint Polycarps Church, that she wants the children to
maintain a relationship with their mother and grandmother and that she has
established a good relationship with both children.  Klase himself also testified.
He stated that he was able to visit with his children when Alexander was
incarcerated, but the situation became complicated when Alexander was released
because she went back to using crack cocaine.  Klase also described the problems
he and Alexander had while married, the  impact of those problems on the
children, and his efforts to conquer his own addictions and improve his
relationship with his children.  He stated that Alexander’s mother lives in a
small, crowded trailer and that the children have had to sleep on the floor when
staying with her.  Klase testified that he and his fiancee were to be married soon,
that they had signed a contract to purchase a house and that he had a support
system of church members and relatives he could depend on for help.  Under
                                                                                                                                                                                          
3The Crest Program is designed to help inmates with drug addiction.
5
cross examination by Alexander, he also agreed that his son used to cry when he
came to pick him up for visitation.
(6)
Beatrice W. Rogers, Alexander’s treatment counselor, testified on
Alexander’s behalf.  She stated that she had been Alexander’s counselor for
about six weeks, and that Alexander had been successful in the Crest Program
and had been approved for work release.  Alexander testified on her own behalf.
She stated that she would be on probation in approximately three months and did
not believe it would benefit the children or her to have them taken away from
her.  Alexander admitted to her criminal history and her addiction to crack
cocaine and admitted using drugs in the presence of her children.  Finally,
Alexander’s mother testified that Alexander had been a good mother and that she
had seen Klase display abusive behavior towards his son.  Alexander’s mother
also stated that she had been a good grandmother and wanted the children to
remain with her.
(7)
Alexander’s claims that the Family Court decision was incorrect and
based on insufficient evidence are without merit.  In its oral ruling from the
bench, the Family Court properly cited to the statutory factors it considered in
determining that legal custody should remain jointly with Klase and Alexander,
but primary residential placement should be with Klase rather than Alexander’s
6
mother.4  Moreover, the decision of the Family Court is supported clearly by the
record, is the product of an orderly and logical deductive process5 and reveals no
abuse of discretion.6  Alexander’s claims that she should have been granted a
postponement and was not afforded a fair trial are also without merit.  We have
reviewed the record in detail and it is is clear that Alexander was given ample
opportunity both to present the evidence supporting her case and to question the
evidence presented by Klase.7
(8)
It is manifest on the face of Alexander’s opening brief that this
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated,
clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
                                                          
413 Del. C. § 722(a); Maureen F.G. v. George W.G., Del. Supr., 445 A.2d 934, 935-37 (1982).
5Schoenbeck v. Schoenbeck, Del. Supr., No. 358, 1997, Veasey, C.J., 1998 WL 10759 (Jan. 2, 1998) (ORDER)
(citing Solis v. Tea, Del. Supr., 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (1983)).
6Stone v. Reed, Del. Supr., No. 510, 1996, Walsh, J., 1997 WL 812629 (Dec. 22, 1997) (ORDER) (citing
Rogers v. Trent, Del. Supr., 594 A.2d 32, 34 (1991)).
7Dilton v. Beens, Del. Supr., No. 466, 1994, Veasey, C.J., 1995 WL 466396 (July 28, 1995) (ORDER).
7
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 25(a), the motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Family
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele_______________
Justice