Title: Grant v. Day

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
REGINA GRANT,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
SKLAR DAY, KENNEDY TUCKER, 
and RAYMOND GRANT, 
 
Respondents Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ No. 447, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CK21-02380 
§  Petition Nos. 22-19499 
§                        22-16235  
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:   May 12, 2023 
 
 
 
 
     Decided:   July 10, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the opening brief and the record below, it appears to 
the Court that:   
(1) 
The petitioner below-appellant, Regina Grant (“the Paternal 
Grandmother”), filed this appeal from the Family Court’s November 10, 2022 order 
dismissing her petition for guardianship of her granddaughter (“the Child”).  We find 
no error or abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s decision.  Accordingly, we 
affirm the Family Court’s judgment. 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).  
2 
 
(2) 
The Child was born in 2017 and lived with the Paternal Grandmother 
until April 2021 when the Child suffered burns on a treadmill.  The Child began 
living with the respondent below-appellee Skylar Day.  On August 3, 2021, Day 
filed a petition for guardianship of the Child.  With the support of the Division of 
Family Services (“DFS”), Day obtained interim guardianship of the Child in 
November 2021. 
(3) 
On December 2, 2021, the Paternal Grandmother filed a petition for 
guardianship of the Child.  After a hearing on July 14, 2022, the Family Court held 
that it was in the best interests of the Child for Day to have guardianship.  The Family 
Court denied the Paternal Grandmother’s petition for guardianship.   
(4) 
On July 14, 2022, the Paternal Grandmother filed a petition for third-
party visitation with the Child.  She filed amended petitions for visitation on July 19, 
2022 and August 22, 2022.   
(5) 
On September 14, 2022, the Paternal Grandmother filed a petition for 
guardianship of the Child and one of the Child’s older half-brothers.  She also filed 
a motion and affidavit for an emergency ex parte order, alleging that Day’s sons 
were sexually molesting the Child.  The Family Court referred the case to DFS for 
investigation and scheduled an emergency hearing for October 6, 2022.  After the 
October 6, 2022 hearing, the Family Court removed the Child’s older brother from 
3 
 
the petition because he had a separate file and stated that the Paternal Grandmother 
could file a separate petition for guardianship of the Child’s older brother.   
(6) 
As to the Child, DFS had been unable to investigate the Paternal 
Grandmother’s petition.  The Child was scheduled for an interview at the Child 
Advocacy Center on October 18, 2022.  The Family Court scheduled another hearing 
for October 27, 2022, and then rescheduled the hearing for November 10, 2022. 
(7) 
At the November 10, 2022 hearing, the Family Court heard testimony 
from the Paternal Grandmother, Day, a DFS employee, and a police officer.  
According to the DFS employee, the Child did not disclose any abuse during her 
interview at the Child Advocacy Center.  Day’s sons denied molesting the Child.  
The police officer testified that the investigation had been closed.  DFS had no 
concerns about the Child being in Day’s care.     
(8) 
On November 22, 2022, the Family Court dismissed the Paternal 
Grandmother’s petition for guardianship.  Based upon a review of the files (which 
reflected that this was the second time the Paternal Grandmother had accused one of 
Day’s children of molesting the Child), the history of the case, and the hearing 
testimony, the Family Court expressed concern for the Paternal Grandmother’s 
mental health and that the Paternal Grandmother was fabricating the allegations of 
abuse.  The Family Court emphasized that it had held a full guardianship hearing on 
July 14, 2022 and that guardianship was decided then.  The Family Court ordered 
4 
 
that all contact between the Paternal Grandmother and the Child be supervised and 
referred the matter to a visitation center for biweekly visitation.  This appeal 
followed. 
(9) 
This Court’s review of a Family Court order extends to a review of the 
facts and the law.2  We review issues of law de novo.3  If the Family Court has 
correctly applied the law, our review is limited to abuse of discretion.4     
(10) On appeal, the Paternal Grandmother primarily challenges the removal 
of the Child from her care in April 2021 and the Family Court’s July 14, 2022 
decision denying her petition for guardianship.  She also contends that Day has failed 
to bring the Child to the visitation center in April and May for visitation.  That claim 
is outside the scope of this appeal.5    
(11) Having reviewed the Family Court’s November 10, 2022 order, the 
record on appeal, and Day’s papers, we conclude that the Family Court did not err 
in dismissing the Paternal Grandmother’s petition for guardianship.  The Family 
Court held on July 14, 2022 that it was in the best interests of the Child for Day to 
have guardianship.  The Paternal Grandmother did not appeal the Family Court’s 
July 14, 2022 decision and cannot relitigate that decision in this appeal.  She alleged 
 
2 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
3 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 
4 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 187 (Del. 1991). 
5 See, e.g., Naccari v. Quails, 2019 WL 5485933, at *1 (Del. Oct. 24, 2019) (describing claims 
based on events occurring after issuance of the order on appeal as outside the scope of the appeal). 
5 
 
sexual abuse of the Child in her second petition for guardianship, but the Family 
Court found no basis for those allegations after the November 10, 2022 hearing.  The 
Paternal Grandmother failed to show that granting her petition for guardianship 
would be in the best interests of these Child.  Under these circumstances, the Family 
Court did not err in dismissing the Paternal Grandmother’s petition for guardianship.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice