Case Title: Dixon v. Fields

Citation: 

Docket Number: 68, 2022

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2022-09-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DAVID DIXON,1 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
EVERLY FIELDS, 
 
Petitioner Below,  
         Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 68, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CN14-02087 
§  Petition No. 21-15364 
§                   
§  
§   
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  July 22, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  September 16, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
(1) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on 
appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the 
Family Court’s order dated February 3, 2022.  The appellee (“Mother”) filed a 
petition in the Family Court seeking to modify the appellant’s (“Father”) visitation 
with the parties’ child, which had been established in an order dated September 30, 
2019, after a full hearing on the merits, and continued in an order dated February 23, 
2021, after a hearing on a petition to modify custody filed by Father.   
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
(2) 
As an initial matter, with the exception of some interim provisions that 
were designed to facilitate the restoration of Father’s contact with the child—and 
which have now expired—it appears that the effect of the order that is the subject of 
this appeal was to deny Mother’s petition to modify Father’s visitation and continue 
the preexisting custody and visitation order.  Therefore, it is not apparent what relief 
Father would achieve from success in this appeal.  Moreover, the fact that Father 
disagrees with the Family Court’s factual determinations is not a basis for reversal.  
Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.2  
To the extent that the Family Court’s determination of facts turned on the credibility 
of the witnesses at the hearing, we will not substitute our opinion for that of the 
Family Court.3  Finally, it appears that Father seeks to relitigate matters previously 
presented to the Family Court by obtaining discovery or submitting additional 
evidence.  After ample notice to the parties, the Family Court held an evidentiary 
hearing at which Father appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the 
issues raised by Mother’s petition; he therefore has not established a basis for the 
relief he seeks. 
 
 
 
2 Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019). 
3 Id. 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary T. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice