Title: Stone v. Smith

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
YVONNE STONE,1 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CALVIN SMITH, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 483, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below–Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File No. CK19-01031 
§  Petition No. 22-10207 
§   
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: May 26, 2023 
Decided: 
August 3, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the appellant’s opening brief and the record on appeal, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Yvonne Stone (“the Mother”), filed this appeal from a 
December 1, 2022 Family Court order denying the Mother’s motion for 
reconsideration of the Family Court’s order that granted the appellee’s motion to 
dismiss the Mother’s petition for custody modification.  For the following reasons, 
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 Mother and the appellee, Calvin Smith (“the Father”), are the 
parents of two minor children (“the Children”).  The record reflects that, beginning 
in early 2019, the parties engaged in an acrimonious custody battle, with the Mother 
repeatedly complaining to the court and State agencies that the Father was abusing 
the Children.2  The Family Court held a trial on the parties’ multiple cross-petitions 
for custody and findings of contempt over three days—December 15, 2020, March 
25, 2021, and April 9, 2021.  Following the hearing, the Family Court issued a final 
custody order on June 29, 2021 (“the Custody Order”).  Among other things, the 
Custody Order: (i) awarded primary residential placement of the Children to the 
Father and established a visitation schedule for the Mother; (ii) dismissed the 
Mother’s two petitions for findings of contempt; and (iii) found that the Mother had 
previously been in contempt of the court’s orders on three occasions when she failed 
to return the Children to the Father for scheduled visitation.  The Mother did not 
appeal the Custody Order. 
(3) 
On May 10, 2022, the Mother filed a petition for modification of the 
Custody Order, seeking joint custody and primary placement of the Children.  The 
Mother also moved for interim relief, seeking increased visitation with the Children 
pending the outcome of her motion for custody modification.  Because the motion 
 
2 Notably, none of these claims were substantiated. 
 
 
3 
 
for interim relief had not been properly served on the Father, the Family Court denied 
it without prejudice.  On September 23, 2022, the Mother filed a motion for an 
emergency ex parte order, alleging that the Father had relocated and was refusing to 
let her visit with the Children.  Also on September 23, 2022, the Mother renewed 
her motion for interim relief, claiming that the Father was attempting to alienate the 
Children from the Mother and seeking sole custody and primary placement of the 
Children.  The Family Court denied the motion for emergency relief, finding that the 
allegations did not warrant immediate relief.   
(4) 
The Father moved to dismiss the Mother’s petitions for custody 
modification and interim relief, citing insufficiency of process and the Mother’s 
failure to state a claim under the heightened standard required under 13  Del. C. § 
729(c)(1) for a petition for custody modification filed within two years of a Family 
Court custody order entered after a full hearing on the merits.  While the Father’s 
motion to dismiss was pending, the Mother filed another motion for an emergency 
ex parte order, asking the court to grant her immediate weekend overnight visitation 
and extra communication with the Children during the week and to find the Father 
in contempt of court.  The Mother also filed a motion to reopen the Custody Order, 
claiming that it should be set aside because she had been unable to attend the final 
two days of the custody hearing.  The Father objected to the motion to reopen, 
pointing out that the Mother had failed to advise the Family Court that she could not 
 
 
4 
 
participate in the final days of the custody hearing, despite her obvious familiarity 
with Family Court litigation procedure, and arguing that the Mother had filed the 
motion to reopen to circumvent the heightened standard she was required to meet 
under Section 729(c)(1).     
(5) 
On October 26, 2022, the Family Court denied the Mother’s motion for 
an emergency ex parte order and directed the parties to comply with the visitation 
terms of the Custody Order.  On November 15, 2022, the Family Court granted the 
Father’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the motion was unopposed and that 
the Mother had failed to plead that enforcement of the Custody Order would 
endanger the Children’s physical health or significantly impair their emotional 
development as required by Section 729(c)(1).3  Finally, on November 21, 2022, the 
Family Court denied as untimely the Mother’s motion to reopen the Custody Order.   
(6) 
On November 28, 2022, the Mother filed a motion to reargue the 
Family Court’s November 15, 2022 order because the Family Court had concluded 
that the Father’s motion to dismiss was unopposed, but the Mother had, in fact, 
responded to and opposed the motion.  After conducting an initial review of the filing 
as required by 10 Del. C. § 8803, the Family Court ordered that the filing be 
 
3 This order also disposed of the Mother’s renewed motion for interim relief. 
 
 
5 
 
dismissed as legally frivolous.  Although the order purportedly rejected the filing, it 
also noted that the motion for reargument was denied.  This appeal followed. 
(7) 
This Court’s review of a Family Court decision includes a review of 
both the law and the facts.4  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.5  If the law 
was correctly applied, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion.6  We review 
a trial court’s denial of a motion for reargument for abuse of discretion.7 
(8) 
On appeal, the Mother argues that the Family Court improperly 
dismissed her filing as legally frivolous and that the Family Court erred when it 
granted the Father’s motion to dismiss because, she claims, the Custody Order was 
not entered after a full hearing on the merits.  The Mother also alleges that she was 
deprived of the opportunity to participate in the custody hearing and that the Family 
Court judge who rejected her motion for reargument is biased against her.  The 
Mother’s arguments are unavailing. 
(9) 
As a preliminary matter, the Mother has waived any arguments relating 
to the proceedings that led to the entry of the Custody Order because she failed to 
appeal that order.  Second, although we agree with the Mother that the Family Court 
 
4 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
5 Wright v. Wright, 49 A.3d 1147, 1150 (Del. 2012). 
6 Id. 
7 Maddox v. Isaacs, 2013 WL 4858989, at *1 (Del. Sept. 10, 2013). 
 
 
6 
 
should not have rejected her filing as legally frivolous because she raised a legitimate 
objection to the Family Court’s finding that the Father’s motion to dismiss was 
unopposed, we nevertheless affirm the Family Court’s denial of the Mother’s motion 
for reargument on the independent and alternative basis that the Family Court did 
not abuse its discretion by denying the motion.8  Contrary to the Mother’s argument 
on appeal, the fact that the Mother declined to participate in the final two days of the 
hearing without notifying the court does not mean that she was deprived the 
opportunity to participate in the hearing.9  The Custody Order was therefore “entered 
by the [Family] Court after a full hearing on the merits,” and the Mother was required 
to plead in her petition for custody modification that continuing enforcement of the 
Custody Order “may endanger the [Children’s] physical health or significantly 
impair [their] emotional development.”10  She did not do so.  Accordingly, the 
Family Court properly granted the Father’s motion to dismiss, and the Family Court 
did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Mother’s motion for reargument, 
which did not set forth any valid reason to set aside the Family Court’s order granting 
 
8 See Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp., 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (recognizing that 
this Court may affirm a trial court’s judgment on the basis of a different rationale than that 
articulated by the trial court). 
9 We observe that the Mother does not deny that she was aware of the dates of the custody hearing. 
10 13 Del. C. § 729(c). 
 
 
7 
 
the motion to dismiss.11  Finally, we have carefully reviewed the record and find that 
it is devoid of any evidence that the Family Court judge harbors any bias against the 
Mother.12 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court be AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice 
 
11 See Dickens v. Coupe, 2019 WL 1220717, at *2 (Del. Mar. 13, 2019) (noting that the proper 
purpose of a motion for reargument is to ask the trial court to reconsider whether it overlooked an 
applicable legal principle or misapprehended the law or the facts). 
12 See Beck v. Beck, 766 A.2d 482, 484-85 (Del. 2001) (noting that judges need not recuse 
themselves based on allegations of personal bias for or against a party; the alleged bias or prejudice 
must be based on information that the trial judge acquired from an extra-judicial source).