Title: Potter v. Blaine

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KARL and TRICIA POTTER, 
 
           Respondents Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
STEPHANIE BLAINE, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 178, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  File No. CS05-02784 
§  Petition No. 05-33609 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  August 25, 2006 
Decided:  October 17, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 1 
 
 
This 17th day of October 2006, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondents-appellants, Karl and Tricia Potter (“parents”), 
filed an appeal from the Family Court’s March 17, 2006 order establishing a 
visitation 
schedule 
for 
the 
petitioner-appellee, 
Stephanie 
Blaine 
(“grandmother”), with the parents’ two minor daughters, Barbara and 
Kathleen.  Because the Family Court’s order constituted an abuse of 
discretion, we hereby VACATE the judgment of the Family Court and 
                                                 
1 The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties and the minor children 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
2
REMAND the matter to the Family Court for further proceedings in 
accordance with this Order.   
 
(2) 
Grandmother filed a petition in the Family Court requesting 
visitation with Barbara and Kathleen.  The Family Court record reflects that 
both parents consistently have opposed grandmother having visitation with 
the children.  A hearing took place in the Family Court on March 17, 2006.  
Although grandmother was present at the hearing with her counsel, the 
parents did not appear.  The parents, who had moved to Florida prior to the 
hearing, filed a letter in the Family Court on March 14, 2006 requesting a 
“continuance or a telephone trial.”  The letter stated the following:  “. . . 
[W]e currently reside in . . . Florida.  It was mentioned in mediation that my 
family was in the process of moving [because] my husband got a good 
career offer that would better support the family.  If we are forced to return 
to Delaware for the trial, more than likely my husband will lose his job . . . .”   
The Family Court denied the parents’ request without providing any reasons 
for the denial.2   
 
(3) 
Grandmother was the sole witness to testify at the hearing.  At 
the conclusion of the hearing, the Family Court determined, “for the reasons 
                                                 
2 The parents state in their briefs that they submitted their evidence, objections and 
opening statement to the Family Court by mail, although that portion of the record before 
us does not reflect that the Family Court ever received or considered those materials.   
 
 
3
set forth on the record in open Court,” that grandmother would be permitted 
visitation with the children on the first week-end of each month and for two 
weeks during their summer vacation.3   
 
(4) 
In their appeal, the parents claim that the Family Court’s order 
granting grandmother visitation with Barbara and Kathleen was not in their 
best interest because grandmother is a stranger to them, grandmother does 
not know their likes and dislikes, grandmother’s home presents a danger to 
them, and grandmother would not teach them the proper moral values.  The 
parents also argue that the Delaware statute governing grandparents’ 
visitation4 violates due process.      
 
(5) 
We do not have the benefit of the transcript of the hearing, 
which presumably would provide the basis for the Family Court’s decision.  
Even without reviewing the transcript, however, it is troubling that the 
Family Court would deny the parents’ request for a continuance without 
providing any reasons and then proceed with the hearing in the parents’ 
absence, even though it should have been clear not only that both parents 
objected to grandmother’s request for visitation,5 but also that the parents 
were no longer living in the State of Delaware.  We conclude that, taken 
                                                 
3 The parents did not order a transcript of the hearing in connection with their appeal.  
They state in their briefs that they misunderstood a representative of the Clerk’s Office to 
say that they did not need to order a transcript for the appeal.     
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 1031. 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 1031(7) a. 
 
4
together, these actions constitute an abuse of discretion on the part of the 
Family Court.  The Family Court’s order must be vacated and the matter 
remanded to the Family Court so that, initially, the matter of the Family 
Court’s jurisdiction can be considered and, if jurisdiction exists, a hearing 
can be scheduled with appropriate notice to, and participation by, the 
parents. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Family Court’s 
March 17, 2006 visitation order is VACATED.  This matter is hereby 
REMANDED to the Family Court for further proceedings in accordance 
with this Order.  Jurisdiction is not retained.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice