Case Title: Smith v. Smith

Citation: 

Docket Number: 232, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ERICA M. SMITH, 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§  
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§   No. 232, 2005 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Court Below – Family Court  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§   of the State of Delaware, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   in and for New Castle County 
SHEILA A. SMITH, 
 
 
§   File No. CN04-06303 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§   Petition No. 04-02491 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§  
 
 
 
 
   
   Submitted:  February 28, 2006 
 
 
 
 
      Decided:  March 7, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
Upon appeal from the Family Court.  DISMISSED. 
 
 
Lois J. Dawson, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellant. 
 
 
Suzanne I. Seubert, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee. 
 
 
Christine K. Demsey, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, amicus curiae 
for Professor Joan Heifetz Hollinger.   
 
Drewry Nash Fennell, Esquire, American Civil Liberties Union of 
Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware, for American Civil Liberties Union, 
American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware, Children and Families First, 
and The Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 
 
 
 
 
HOLLAND, Justice: 
 
This proceeding is a custody dispute involving children who were 
born during a relationship between the respondent-appellant, Erica Smith 
(“Erica”) and the petitioner-appellee, Sheila A. Smith (“Sheila”).1  The 
children are nine-year old triplets named Joan, Erin and Michael; and 
Samantha, who is now five years old.  Erica is the biological mother of the 
triplets.  Sheila is Samantha’s biological mother.   
 
Sheila initiated this action by filing a petition for joint custody of the 
four children, alleging that she is a parent of the triplets under the Delaware 
Parentage Act or, in the alternative, based on the de facto parent doctrine.  
The Family Court found that Sheila is a de facto parent of the triplets and 
had standing to seek custody.  Following a four-day evidentiary hearing, the 
Family Court awarded joint custody to both parties with primary residential 
placement of the triplets in Erica’s home and standard visitation to Sheila.2 
 
In this direct appeal, Erica challenges the final judgment of the Family 
Court that awarded Sheila joint custody of the triplets.  Erica alleges that 
Sheila is not a biological parent, and thus has no legal right to seek custody 
of the triplets, and that the Delaware courts have no power to consider 
Sheila’s petition.  The record also reflects, however, that Erica filed an 
                                          
 
1 The Court has assigned pseudonyms to the appellants pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
7(d).   
2 After the Family Court’s order holding that Sheila is a parent for purposes of custody 
and visitation, Erica sought and was awarded an order of child support from Sheila.   
action seeking child support from Sheila for the triplets.  Erica prevailed in 
the child support action and is receiving child support from Sheila for the 
triplets, based upon the joint custody judgment and residential placement 
decision that Erica challenges in this appeal.   
We have concluded that the “acceptance of the benefits” doctrine 
requires Erica’s appeal to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we do not reach the 
merits of the Family Court’s decisions that determined Sheila to be a de 
facto parent of the triplets and awarded her joint custody of the triplets with 
Erica.   
Facts 
 
Sheila and Erica were in a relationship from 1994 until 2003.  Three 
years into their relationship, Erica was inseminated with sperm from an 
anonymous donor and gave birth to the triplets:  Joan, Erin and Michael.  
Several years later, using the same anonymous sperm donor, Sheila gave 
birth to Samantha.  Thus, Samantha and the triplets are genetic half siblings.   
 
The couple and the four children lived together in a five-bedroom 
house in Delaware.  In August 2003, Erica and Sheila concluded that they 
could no longer continue living together.  They executed an agreement on 
October 30, 2003, which designated Sheila as the residential parent of the 
four minor children.  The agreement also provided that Erica would have 
visitation every day after school and on alternating weekends.  In December 
2003, however, Erica informed Sheila that she would no longer abide by the 
agreement and took the triplets from Sheila’s home.   
Joint Custody Decision 
 
Sheila filed a petition for joint legal and physical custody of the 
children on January 28, 2004.  Erica filed a motion to dismiss Sheila’s 
petition arguing that Sheila lacked standing to seek custody of Joan, Erin or 
Michael.  On November 18, 2004, the Family Court held that Sheila was a 
de facto parent and had standing to seek custody of the triplets under title 13, 
section 721 of the Delaware Code.  Accordingly, the Family Court denied 
Erica’s motion to dismiss Sheila’s petition for joint custody and scheduled a 
hearing. 
 
On May 6, 2005, the Family Court held that it is in “the best interests 
of the triplets to award joint custody to both parties [Sheila and Erica] with 
primary residence in [Erica’s] home.”  The Family Court ordered that Sheila 
would have visitation with the triplets pursuant to the “Standard Visitation 
Guidelines.”  The Family Court noted that although Erica did not formally 
request visitation with Samantha, such visitation should “occur frequently 
and regularly, particularly since the triplets appear to have a strong 
relationship with Samantha.”   
Child Support Decision 
 
Erica filed a petition against Sheila for child support.  Erica argued 
that Sheila “owes a legal duty of support to the [triplets]” and requested that 
Sheila be ordered to pay retroactive child support for a two-year period.  
Sheila filed a cross petition against Erica for support of all four children.  
The child support actions were held in abeyance until the issues of custody 
and residential placement were decided.   
 
The Family Court issued a decision on June 24, 2005 requiring Sheila 
to pay child support to Erica for the triplets care in the amount of $721 per 
month, which Sheila continues to pay today.  The judgment awarding child 
support recites that the basis for its entry was the Family Court’s prior 
decisions of November 18, 2004 and May 6, 2005.  These are the same de 
facto parent determination and joint custody judgments that are the subject 
matter of this appeal. 
Contradictory Legal Arguments  
 
On May 27, 2005, Erica filed a notice of appeal, challenging Sheila’s 
status as a de facto parent and her entitlement to maintain a parental 
relationship with the triplets.  In this appeal, Erica asserts:   
 
The Petitioner [Sheila] in this matter has no standing.  
The Petitioner [Sheila] is not the natural or adoptive parent.  
Delaware law has clearly defined the word parent as a person 
who has a legal relationship of parent to a child.  The Petitioner 
[Sheila] does not hold a legal relationship and therefore has no 
right to file a Petition for Custody of the minor children of their 
biological mother, the Respondent [Erica] in this instant case.   
 
The final judgment that is the subject of this appeal is the Family Court 
decision dated May 6, 2005 that awarded joint custody of the triplets to 
Sheila and Erica, primary residential placement with Erica, and standard 
rights of visitation to Sheila. This appeal also challenges an interlocutory 
decision by the Family Court dated November 18, 2004 that determined 
Sheila was a de facto parent of the triplets. 
  
Erica has intentionally pursued and continues to receive child support 
benefits from Sheila for the triplets, based on the de facto parent 
determination and joint custody judgment from which Erica now appeals.  In 
this appeal, Erica asserts that the joint custody judgment and de facto parent 
determination are invalid because Sheila has no legal relationship to the 
triplets.  Conversely, following the entry of those decisions, Erica relied 
upon those judgments to successfully argue that Sheila owed a “legal duty to 
support the triplets.”   
Acceptance of Benefits Doctrine 
 
“No rule is better settled than that a litigant who accepts the benefits 
or any substantial part of the benefits of a judgment or decree is thereby 
estopped from reviewing and escaping from its burdens.  [She] cannot avail 
[herself] of its advantages, and then question its disadvantages in a higher 
court.”3  Accordingly, it is well-settled law that an appellant who accepts the 
benefits of a judgment cannot pursue an appeal that may invalidate the rights 
to those benefits if successful.4   
The “acceptance of the benefits” doctrine provides that an appeal from 
a judgment is prohibited when the appellant has voluntarily accepted 
benefits from that judgment.5  In this case, Erica has accepted child support 
benefits from Sheila for the triplets that were awarded on the basis of the de 
facto parent determination and the joint custody judgments that Erica seeks 
to overturn in this appeal.  Consequently, we have concluded that this appeal 
must be dismissed. 
Conclusion 
 
This appeal is dismissed. 
 
 
                                          
 
3 Albright v. Oyster, 60 F. 644 (8th Cir. 1894).  See In re Marriage of Bates, 737 P.2d 
973, 974 (Or. Ct. App. 1987); In re Electric Power & Light Corp., 176 F.2d 687, 690 
(2nd Cir. 1949); Smith v. Morris, 69 F.2d 3, 4-5 (3rd Cir. 1934); Tudor Associates, Ltd., 
II v. Rulisa Operating Co., 20 F.3d 115, 118 (4th Cir. 1994); Kaiser v. Standard Oil Co. 
of New Jersey, 89 F.2d 58, 59 (5th Cir. 1937); Tech Hills II Associates v. Phoenix Home 
Life Mut. Ins. Co., 5 F.3d 963, 969 (6th Cir. 1993); Sligo, Inc. v. Nevois, 84 F.3d 1014, 
1018 (8th Cir. 1996); Wynfield Inns v. Edward Leroux Group, Inc., 896 F.2d 483, 489 
(11th Cir. 1990). 
4 See In re Marriage of Bates, 737 P.2d 973, 974 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).  
5 See Sligo, Inc. v. Nevois, 84 F.3d 1014, 1018 (8th Cir. 1996); Wynfield Inns v. Edward 
Leroux Group, Inc., 896 F.2d 483, 489 (11th Cir. 1990).