Title: Richardson v. Davis-Reed

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JASPER P. RICHARDSON,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DAWN DAVIS-REED, 
 
Respondent Below,  
         Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 259, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CN08-02364 
§  Petition No. 21-21545 
§                   
§  
§   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  March 10, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  May 3, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After careful consideration of the opening brief and the record on appeal, we 
conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family 
Court’s order dated June 29, 2022.  On September 15, 2021, the appellant (“Father”) 
filed a petition in the Family Court seeking modification of the parties’ children’s 
primary residential placement, which had been determined in November 2019 after 
a full hearing on the merits.  After a hearing on Father’s petition and a child 
interview, the Family Court determined that Father had not established that 
“continuing enforcement of the prior order may endanger the [children’s] physical 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
health or significantly impair [their] emotional development,” as required for 
modification of an order entered less than two years before the filing of a petition 
for modification.2  Among other things, the court found that Father’s testimony 
lacked credibility; that the appellee had provided appropriate care and nurture to the 
children; and that the appellee had “done nothing that would cause the Court 
concerns for the safety and well-being” of the children.  The Family Court 
appropriately applied 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(1).3  A trial court’s 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.4  To the extent that Father asserts that the Family Court erred in its November 
2019 order, those claims are not properly asserted in this appeal from the Family 
Court’s June 2022 order. 
 
 
 
2 See 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(1) (“An order entered by the Court after a full hearing on the merits 
concerning the legal custody of a child or his or her primary residence may be modified only as 
follows:  (1) If the application for modification is filed within 2 years after the Court’s most recent 
order concerning these matters, the Court shall not modify its prior order unless it finds, after a 
hearing, that continuing enforcement of the prior order may endanger the child’s physical health 
or significantly impair his or her emotional development.”). 
3 See Green v. Green, 2011 WL 1467757 (Del. Apr. 18, 2011) (affirming Family Court’s denial of 
custody modification under 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(1)). 
4 Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice