Title: Andrews v. Andrews

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DANIEL ANDREWS,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JAIME ANDREWS, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 645, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CS02-04531  
§  Petition Nos. 09-34492 and  
§  10-03236 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 22, 2011 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 27, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 27th day of June 2011, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Daniel Andrews (“Father”), filed this appeal 
from a Family Court order, dated September 13, 2010, denying his petition 
for modification of custody.  Having reviewed the parties’ respective 
contentions and the record below, we find no error in the Family Court’s 
findings and conclusions.  Accordingly, the Family Court’s judgment shall 
be affirmed. 
                                                 
1 Pseudonyms were assigned to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that the parties are the parents of three 
minor children.  At the time of the Family Court’s hearing in June 2010, the 
children were ages 16, 13, and 11, respectively.  In February 2005, the 
parties were awarded joint custody of their children with primary residential 
placement with Mother.  Father had standard visitation.  In February 2007, 
Mother filed an emergency motion for sole custody and to stay Father’s 
visitation rights.  Mother alleged that Father was planning to flee the 
country.  After an emergency hearing on February 27, 2007, at which Father 
did not appear, the Family Court awarded Mother sole custody of the 
children with Father having supervised visitation at the Visitation Center in 
Georgetown.  Thereafter, a full hearing was held on May 16, 2007.  On 
August 13, 2007, the Family Court entered a final order granting Mother 
sole custody of the children and making Father’s supervised visits with the 
children contingent upon his participation in counseling. 
 
(3) 
In October 2009, Father filed a petition to modify custody 
requesting joint custody, unsupervised visitation, long weekends, summer 
vacation, and the ability to make medical decisions for the children.  He also 
requested the Family Court to return his passport so that he could travel.2  
The Family Court held a hearing on Father’s petition on June 15, 2010.  
                                                 
2 The Family Court previously had ordered Father to surrender his passport in February 2007, although 
Father had already left the country for Israel when the order issued.  He remained abroad for a year and a 
half and eventually was granted Israeli citizenship before he returned to the United States. 
 
3
Mother and Father both appeared, pro se, and testified.  The Family Court 
heard testimony from several additional witnesses and also interviewed the 
parties’ three children.  After considering all of the evidence, the Family 
Court denied Father’s petition to modify custody and further ordered that 
Father could not have visitation with the children until he underwent a 
psychological evaluation, at which point he would be permitted to file a 
motion for modification of visitation.  The Family Court also ordered that 
Father’s passport be returned to him.  
 
(4) 
 In his opening brief on appeal, Father argues that the Family 
Court erred as a matter of law in refusing to issue subpoenas to have two of 
his children testify at the hearing.  Father also argues that the Family Court 
abused its discretion in the weight it afforded each witness’ testimony and 
that the court’s decision was a product of gender bias. 
 
(5) 
In reviewing a motion for modification of custody that is filed 
more than two years after the Family Court’s most recent custody order,3 the 
Family Court may modify its order after considering: (i) whether any harm 
is likely to be caused to the children by the custody modification (and 
weighing that harm against any potential advantages); (ii) the compliance of 
                                                 
3 The Family Court incorrectly referred to 13 DEL. CODE ANN. § 729(c)(1), which is the standard for 
considering custody modification motions filed within two years of the Family Court’s most recent custody 
order.  We find this error harmless, however, because the Family Court actually considered all of the 
pertinent factors under Section 729(c)(2), related to motions filed more than two years from the most recent 
custody order. 
 
4
the parents with prior custody orders; and (iii) the best interests of the 
children in accordance with 13 Del. C § 722.4 
 (6) 
Our standard of review of a decision of the Family Court 
extends to a review of the facts and law, as well as the inferences and 
deductions made by the trial judge.5  We have the duty to review the 
sufficiency of the evidence and to test the propriety of the trial court’s 
conclusions.6  Findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless they 
are determined to be clearly erroneous.7  We will not substitute our opinion 
for the inferences and deductions of the trial judge if those inferences are 
supported by the record.8 
 
(7) 
In this case, it was within the Family Court’s discretion to 
choose to interview the children in chambers rather than compelling them to 
                                                 
4 Section 722(a) provides: 
The Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the 
best interests of the child.  In determining the best interests of the child, the Court shall consider all relevant 
factors including: 
(1)  The wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements; 
(2)  The wishes of the child as to his or her custodians(s) and residential arrangements; 
(3)  The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents, grandparents, siblings, persons 
cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other residents of the 
household or persons who may significantly affect the child’s best interests; 
(4)  The child’s adjustment to his or her home, school and community; 
(5)  The mental and physical health of all individuals involved; 
(6)  Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 
701 of this title; and 
(7)  Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title. 
5 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
6 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
7 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
8 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d at 1204. 
 
5
testify in court.9  We find no abuse of the Family Court’s discretion in that 
regard.  Moreover, we find that the Family Court’s factual determinations 
are supported by the record, and we find no basis to disturb those findings on 
appeal.  The Family Court properly applied the law to the facts in 
concluding that Father had failed to sustain his burden of proving that a 
modification of custody was in the children’s best interests. His contention 
that the Family Court’s ruling was the product of gender bias is completely 
unsupported by the record. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
9 See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 13, § 724(a) (2009).