Case Title: Campbell v. Isaac

Citation: 

Docket Number: 656, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2011-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MOLLY ALLEN CAMPBELL,1  
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CHARLES B. ISAAC, 
 
          Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 656, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CS09-02262 
§  Petition No. 09-20108 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: May 27, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 14, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices  
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 14th day of July 2011, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, Molly Allen Campbell (“Mother”), 
filed an appeal from the Family Court’s October 5, 2010 custody and 
visitation order establishing joint legal custody of the parties’ minor child, 
primary placement with Mother, and overnight visitation with petitioner-
appellee Charles B. Isaac (“Father”).  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm. 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated October 14, 
2010.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).  We hereby also assign a pseudonym to the parties’ minor child. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Mother and Father are the biological 
parents of Annie, born on June 15, 2009.  When Annie was born, Mother 
and Father, who were not married, had separated, with Mother living in 
Delaware and Father living in Maryland.  On June 16, 2009, Father filed a 
petition for custody in the Family Court alleging that Mother and Mother’s 
family had not allowed him to see his newborn daughter.   
 
(3) 
On August 24, 2009, a hearing was held before a Family Court 
mediator, who established an interim contact schedule for Father consisting 
of visitation every Saturday, Monday and Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 
p.m.  On the third week, visitation was to be increased on Saturday from 
2:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.  Exchanges were to take place at the Seaford Police 
Department, Seaford, Delaware.   
 
(4) 
On September 28, 2010, a hearing was held in the Family Court 
on Father’s custody petition.  Mother and Father both appeared.  Mother was 
represented by counsel, while Father appeared pro se.  In addition to the 
parties’ testimony, the Family Court also heard the testimony of Father’s 
sister, Mother’s maternal grandmother, maternal grandmother’s boyfriend, 
Mother’s maternal aunt and two of Mother’s friends.  The parties agreed to 
share joint legal custody of Annie, with Mother having primary physical 
 
3
placement.  The only issue in dispute was whether Father should be 
permitted to have overnight visitation. 
 
(5) 
The testimony presented at the hearing established the 
following.  Father owns and resides in a mobile home just west of Seaford in 
the State of Maryland.  The home has three bedrooms, one of which is 
reserved for Annie.  Father lives with his two sons, age 4 and 8.  Father 
obtained sole custody of his sons following his divorce.  The boys’ mother is 
currently incarcerated.  Father is self-employed in the construction field.  
Although Father’s hours are flexible, he has arranged for back-up care for 
Annie and his sons with his mother, in case of an emergency.  Father’s sister 
and Father’s brother, who has one year-old twins, also would spend time 
with Annie.  Father is current in his child support.  Father has no criminal 
record in Delaware, although he acknowledged an incident with Mother in 
which he grabbed her arm, causing a bruise.  Father submitted his sons’ 
report cards for 2009-2010, which reflected that both boys have good grades 
and are courteous and responsible.   
 
(6) 
In 2008, Father was fired when he tested positive for drugs.  He 
attended a drug program at Peninsula Addiction Services during April, May 
and June of 2008.  He successfully completed the program, but did not 
return for follow-up.  Father testified that he has not used illegal drugs since 
 
4
that time.  Father’s sister corroborated his testimony.  One of Mother’s 
friends testified that she had concerns about the cleanliness of Father’s home 
and stated that she observed Father using marijuana sometime near the end 
of 2008 or the beginning of 2009.  While she suggested that there was drug 
use by Father during this time, no concrete evidence of that was presented.  
Another of Mother’s friends testified that Mother has been married to her 
new husband for about 6 months.  According to her, Mother’s husband treats 
Annie like his own child.      
 
(7) 
Mother’s testimony reflects that her main concern with Father 
having overnight visitation with Annie is his history of drug use.  While 
Mother testified that Father was still smoking marijuana in October 2009 
when they separated, she acknowledged that he never did so in front of his 
two boys.  Also, while Mother stated that Father smokes cigarettes, there 
was no corroborating evidence that he does so while in the presence of his 
children.  Mother’s maternal grandmother, who works for the Department of 
Correction as a probation and parole supervisor, testified that Father 
displayed characteristics of people who abuse drugs---namely, controlling 
behavior, red eyes, nervousness and excessive cigarette smoking. 
 
(8) 
 In its custody and visitation order, the Family Court permitted 
Father visitation with Annie according to the following schedule:  Every 
 
5
other week-end, beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Friday through 6:00 p.m. on 
Sunday and 2 evenings each week, for a minimum of 3 hours each evening.  
Once Annie turns 18 months of age, the Family Court permitted two 
overnights per week to be agreed upon by the parties, plus every other week-
end from 6:00 on Friday through Monday morning.  The Family Court 
expressly prohibited Father from using illegal drugs or alcohol during 
visitation and prohibited both parents from smoking in Annie’s presence.  
The Family Court noted that, while Father acknowledged using marijuana in 
the past and while there was testimony suggesting that it continued beyond 
his participation in a drug program, there was no evidence that Father 
continues to use marijuana at this time.  Neither is there any evidence that 
Father’s two sons are not being raised properly. 
 
(9) 
In this appeal, Mother claims that the Family Court erred a) by 
failing to consider the requirements of Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §§722 and 728 
in deciding the issue of Father’s visitation with Annie; and b) by issuing a 
visitation order that amounted to shared placement and that was not the 
product of a logical deductive process. 
 
(10) When determining issues of custody and visitation, the Family 
Court must address the requirements of Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §§722 and 
728.  Section 722(a) provides that custody and residential arrangements must 
 
6
be in accordance with the best interests of the child, considering all relevant 
factors including: a) the wishes of the parents; b) the wishes of the child; c) 
the interaction of the child with his parents, relatives and any other residents 
of the household; d) the child’s adjustment to his home, school and 
community; e) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; f) 
past and present compliance of the parents with their rights and 
responsibilities to their child; and g) evidence of domestic violence.  Under 
§728(a), the Family Court must determine custody and visitation 
arrangements consistent with the best interests and maturity of the child and 
in a manner designed to encourage frequent and meaningful contact with 
both parents.         
 
(11) Our standard of review of a decision of the Family Court 
extends to a review of the facts and the law, as well as the inferences and 
deductions made by the Family Court judge.2  This Court reviews the 
sufficiency of the evidence in order to test the propriety of the Family 
Court’s conclusions.3  The Family Court’s findings of fact will not be 
disturbed on appeal unless they are determined to be clearly erroneous.4  We 
will not substitute our opinion for the inferences and deductions of the 
                                                 
2 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
3 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
4 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
 
7
Family Court judge if those inferences and deductions are supported by the 
record.5 
 
(12) We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, including 
the transcript of the Family Court’s September 28, 2010 custody hearing.  
While Mother contends that the Family Court did not strictly follow the 
requirements of §722, we note that the requirements involving the wishes of 
the child, the interactions of the child with its parents and relatives and the 
adjustment of the child to its home and community cannot be strictly 
followed when the child is an infant.  We conclude that the Family Court’s 
analysis under §722 was appropriate under the circumstances presented in 
this case.  While Mother cites Father’s continued drug use as a basis for 
forbidding overnight visitation, we note that the Family Court questioned 
Father closely on that subject and found him to be credible.  We will not 
substitute our opinion for that of the Family Court in a matter of credibility.  
While Mother contends that the Family Court’s analysis is faulty because it 
had no information concerning Father’s criminal record in Maryland, we 
conclude that the Family Court made the appropriate inquiry into Father’s 
criminal record and properly weighed this factor with the information it had.  
In sum, we conclude that the Family Court committed no error or abuse of 
                                                 
5 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d at 1204. 
 
8
discretion and that its decision was fully supported by the evidence adduced 
at the hearing and was the product of a logical deductive process.  As such, it 
must be affirmed.    
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice