Title: Seeco v. Drummel

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
WALTER SEECO,1 
 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ANNE DRUMMEL, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§     No. 3, 2018 
§ 
§ 
§     Court Below—Family Court 
§     of the State of Delaware, 
§     in and for Kent County 
§     File No. CK15-03051 
§     Pet. No. 16-25891 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 27, 2018 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 26, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Walter Seeco (“Father”), filed this appeal from the 
Family Court’s order dated December 14, 2017, granting, by default, sole custody 
of the parties’ three-year-old son to the appellee, Anne Drummel.  On appeal, the 
Father asserts that the Family Court erred in modifying the parties’ joint custody 
arrangement and in reducing his visitation to one weekend per month.  We find no 
basis to overturn the Family Court’s default judgment.  Accordingly, we affirm.  
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties. 
 
2 
 (2) 
The record reflects that the parties entered a custody order by consent 
in May 2016.  Mother filed a petition for modification of custody a year later.  At 
the time, the parties’ son was living with Mother in Delaware.  Father lives and 
works in Pennsylvania.   
(3) 
The Family Court held a case management conference with the parties 
on June 16, 2017.  Mother appeared in person.  Father appeared by telephone.  After 
talking through the parties’ issues and discussing the procedural next steps with 
them, the Family Court set the matter down for a two-hour trial on December 5, 2017 
beginning at 9 AM.  The Family Court informed Father that he would have to appear 
in person on December 5 and that he could not participate by telephone.  Father 
acknowledged that requirement. 
(4) 
On December 5, 2017, Mother appeared at the hearing.  Father did not.  
The Family Court found that Father had been properly notified of the hearing, orally 
and in writing, and stated that Father had not contacted the Court to request a 
continuance or to provide any explanation for his absence.  Thus, the Family Court 
granted Mother’s petition for sole custody, finding the petition reasonable in light of 
Mother’s uncontroverted proffer of evidence. 
(5) 
On appeal, Father asserts that he is a loving and responsible parent and 
that the Family Court erred in granting Mother sole custody.  But, Father does not 
deny that he was properly notified about the hearing scheduled for the Family Court 
 
3 
to consider Mother’s petition to modify custody and that he chose not to appear and 
contest the petition.  Under these circumstances, given Father’s default, we find no 
abuse of the Family Court’s discretion in granting Mother’s petition for sole 
custody.2  To the extent Father has an explanation for his failure to appear, that issue 
must be presented to and determined by the Family Court in the first instance through 
a motion to reopen the judgment under Rule 60(b), which must be properly 
supported by facts justifying relief from the default judgment.3   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                                 
2 Stevens v. Brown, 2014 WL 7010036, *3 (Del. Nov. 25, 2014). 
3 See Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 60(b) (2018).