Title: Price v. Brooks

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KELLY PRICE,1 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
HARRY BROOKS, 
 
Petitioner Below,  
         Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 282, 2021 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CN-07-05893 
§  Petition No. 20-00100 
§                   
§   
§   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  February 18, 2022  
 
 
 
 
  Decided: April 6, 2022 
 
 
 
 
  Corrected: April 7, 2022 
 
Before VAUGHN, TRAYNOR, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 
conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family 
Court’s order dated August 24, 2021.  The appellee (“Father”) filed a petition in the 
Family Court seeking increased time with the parties’ children, who since the 
parties’ divorce in 2009 had been visiting with Father on an alternating-weekend 
basis in accordance with an agreement between the parties.  The Family Court 
appropriately considered the best-interest factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722.  In 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
determining the residential arrangement for the children, the Family Court acted 
within its broad discretion.2  Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless 
they are clearly erroneous, and when the determination of facts turns on a question 
of the credibility of the witnesses appearing before the trial court, we will not 
substitute our opinion for that of the trier of fact.3   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
2 See Russell v. Stevens, 2007 WL 3215667, at *2 (Del. Nov. 1, 2007) (affirming Family Court’s 
residential-placement determination and stating that when the Family Court appropriately 
considers and weighs each of the best-interest factors, the “law vests wide discretion in the trial 
court to determine where custody shall be placed”). 
3 Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).