Title: McConaughey v. Wolfe

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CANDICE MCCONAUGHEY,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MICHAEL WOLFE, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 276, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CK12-03234 
§  Petition Nos. 17-08034,  
§  17-06600, 17-22646 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:  December 14, 2018 
 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  February 11, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
After consideration of the opening brief and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that:   
(1) 
The appellant, Candice McConaughey (“the Mother”), filed this appeal 
from a Family Court decision and order, dated April 24, 2018, ruling on her petition 
to modify custody and competing petitions for a rule to show cause.  We find no 
error or abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s decision.  Accordingly, 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 Michael Wolfe (“the Father”) are the parents of a son 
born in October 2012 (“the Child”).   Under the permanent custody order entered 
with the parties’ consent on January 16, 2014, the Mother and the Father shared joint 
legal custody of the Child.  The Child lived primarily with the Mother, with the 
Father having visitation every weekend from Saturday morning until Monday 
morning, plus two three-hour visits each week.  If the Mother could not provide 
transportation, the Father was to provide transportation.     
(3) 
On March 6, 2017, the Father filed a petition for a rule to show cause, 
alleging that the Mother often failed to drop the Child off for visits or pick him up.  
He sought full residential placement of the Child.  On March 9, 2017, the Mother 
filed a petition for modification of custody, alleging that the Father had no physical 
address, was not consistently picking the Child up twice a week for three-hour visits, 
and was picking up and dropping off the Child at his own convenience.  On July 26, 
2017, the Mother filed a petition for a rule to show cause, making allegations similar 
to those in her petition for modification of custody.  The Mother filed a petition for 
priority scheduling, which the Family Court denied. 
(4) 
The Mother filed a motion for an emergency ex parte order reducing 
the Father’s visitation.  The Family Court denied the motion, finding the Mother did 
not establish a risk of immediate, irreparable harm.  The Family Court reminded the 
parties to comply with the existing court order.  On August 18, 2017, the Family 
3 
 
Court held a case management conference on the parties’ petitions.  On August 25, 
2017, the Family Court issued an order documenting the case management 
conference, scheduling a hearing on the petitions for January 25, 2018, and 
establishing pre-hearing deadlines and procedures.   
(5) 
 At the January 25, 2018 hearing, the Family Court heard testimony 
from the Mother, her uncle, and the Father.  The Family Court reserved decision and 
gave the Mother additional time to submit into evidence text messages she 
exchanged with the Father.  In its April 24, 2018 decision, the Family Court 
concluded that the parties should continue to have joint legal custody and the Child 
should continue to reside primarily with the Mother during the school year (with the 
Father having the Child on weekends), but the Father should have increased 
visitation with the Child in the summer (every other week).   
(6) 
As to the rules to show cause, the Family Court denied the Mother’s 
petition.  The Family Court found that the Mother had not shown the Father violated 
the custody order.  The Family Court granted the Father’s petition.  The Family 
Court found that the Mother violated the custody order by conditioning the Father’s 
visits on additional changes to the locations and times of exchanges (the custody 
order provided for exchange to occur at the Mother’s residence, but the Father had 
agreed when the Mother changed the exchange location) and cancelling one of the 
Father’s weekend visits because she was displeased with him.  This appeal followed. 
4 
 
(7) 
This Court’s review of a Family Court decision includes a review of 
both the law and the facts.2  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.3  Factual 
findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous and justice 
required they be overturned on appeal.4  When the determination of facts turns on a 
question of the credibility and the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of 
witnesses appearing before the trier of fact, we will not substitute our opinion for 
that of the trier of fact.5   
(8) 
The Mother’s arguments on appeal may be summarized as follows: (i) 
the Family Court misstated certain facts, including the date of the custody order, the 
Father’s remarriage, and the Mother’s profession and employer; (ii) the Family 
Court was biased and relied on hearsay; (iii) the Family Court ignored things the 
Mother raised at the hearing; (iv) the whole purpose of the Mother’s petition was to 
modify the custody order in light of her work schedule, but that was not discussed 
at the hearing; (v) the Family Court allowed the Father to introduce text messages 
he exchanged with the Mother over the Mother’s objection that he had not provided 
that evidence to her before the hearing as required by the case management order; 
                                                 
2 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
3 Id.  
4 Id.  
5 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V, Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del.1979). 
5 
 
and (vi) the exchange times and locations in the order do not reflect the parties’ 
preferences.  
(9) 
Although the Mother had the burden of supplying a transcript of the 
January 25, 2018 hearing,6 she chose not to obtain one after the Family Court denied 
her motion to waive the transcript fee.  A civil litigant does not have an absolute 
right to obtain a copy of a transcript at State expense.7  In the absence of a transcript, 
the Court lacks an adequate basis for evaluating most of the Mother’s claims on 
appeal.8  The Mother claims that the Family Court ignored the whole purpose of her 
custody petition (to modify the visitation schedule in light of her work schedule), 
but the petition does not mention her work schedule.  As to the text messages, the 
Family Court gave the Mother the opportunity to submit her text messages with the 
Father after the hearing and considered those messages.       
(10) Under Delaware law, the Family Court is required to determine legal 
custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the best interests 
                                                 
6 Supr. Ct. R. 9(e)(ii); Supr. Ct. R. 14(e); Tricoche v. Stale, 525 A.2d 151, 154 (Del. 1987). 
7 Mahan v. Mahan, 2007 WL 1850905, at *1 (Del. June 28, 2007). 
8 See, e.g., Baines v. Hunter, 2018 WL 2316541, at *1 (Del. May 22, 2018) (“To the extent the 
respondent/petitioner below-appellant claims that the Family Court disregarded the evidence he 
offered or disputes the Family Court's factual findings, we cannot review those claims in the 
absence of a transcript of the [] rule to show cause hearing.”); Drake v. Orlando, 2017 WL 
1409578, at *2 (Del. Apr. 19, 2017) (“In the absence of a transcript of the custody hearing, this 
Court lacks an adequate basis for evaluating the Father's claims that the Family Court failed to 
consider certain evidence.”).  
6 
 
of the child.9  The April 24, 2018 decision reflects that the Family Court carefully 
considered all of the best interest factors under 13 Del. C.  § 722 and determined that 
it was in the best interests of the Child to increase his visitation with the Father.  We 
find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s custody rulings.  We also find no basis to 
disturb the Family Court’s rulings on the rule to show cause petitions.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
9 The best interest factors include: (i) the wishes of the parents regarding the child’s custody and 
residential arrangements; (ii) the wishes of the child regarding her custodians and residential 
arrangements; (iii) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with her parents, grandparents, 
siblings, persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, 
and any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child’s best 
interests; (iv) the child’s adjustment to her home, school, and community; (v) the mental and 
physical health of all individuals involved; (vi) past and present compliance by both parents with 
their rights and responsibilities to the child under 13 Del. C. § 701; (vii) evidence of domestic 
violence; and (viii) the criminal history of any party or any resident of the household.  13 Del. C. 
§ 722.