Title: Leonard v. Leonard

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN LEONARD, 1 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
LYNN LEONARD, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 49, 2005 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court of the 
§  State of Delaware in and for Kent 
§  County 
§  File No. CK03-06768 
§  Petition Nos. 03-18019 
§                        04-19199 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 4, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    October 18, 2005 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 18th day of October 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, John Leonard (“Father”), appeals 
from the Family Court’s January 4, 2005 custody/visitation order.  The 
petitioner-appellee, Lynn Leonard (“Mother”), has moved to affirm the 
judgment of the Family Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Father’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
                                                 
1 The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties, Father’s current wife and 
the parties’ minor children.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
2
 
(2) 
On January 4, 2005, a hearing was held in the Family Court on 
Mother’s petition for custody and Father’s petition for modification of 
visitation rights.  The evidence presented at the hearing showed that Mother 
and Father are divorced and have two minor children, James, age 5, and 
David, age 4.  James has neurological problems and is developmentally 
delayed.  Mother and Father originally lived in western Pennsylvania.  Both 
Mother and Father have criminal convictions stemming from a domestic 
altercation involving Father’s romantic involvement with the parties’ nanny.  
Mother pleaded guilty to domestic violence involving Father, and Father 
pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of his son, David, in connection 
with the same incident.   
 
(3) 
Father is now married to Grace, the former nanny, and he and 
Grace have an infant son.  Grace became pregnant with Father’s child while 
Father was still married to Mother.  Grace pleaded nolo contendere to third 
degree assault in connection with injuries to James.  Mother, Father and 
Grace all have successfully completed court-ordered domestic abuse 
programs.  Father, who has a history of alcohol abuse, does not have 
extended family living close by.  Mother’s extended family is in Western 
Pennsylvania, where she plans to return.  Mother has been primarily 
responsible for caring for the children’s physical and emotional needs.  The 
 
3
University of Pittsburgh in Western Pennsylvania employs physicians who 
specialize in developmentally delayed children.  James already has received 
treatment from several physicians at the University of Pittsburgh.   
 
(4) 
After a full hearing on the merits at which Mother, Father, 
Grace and two relatives of Mother testified, the Family Court determined 
that Mother and Father would continue to share joint legal custody of their 
two children, primary residential placement being with Mother.  The Family 
Court further ordered that supervised visitation with Father would continue 
at the Visitation Center until the end of the childrens’ school year, at which 
time they would relocate with their Mother to Pennsylvania.  At that time, 
visitation with Father would be every other Sunday at a time and place to be 
mutually agreed upon by the parties, with additional visitation to take place 
upon 72 hours notice by Father.    
 
(5) 
In this appeal, Father claims that the Family Court should have 
awarded him full custody of James and David because: Mother engaged in 
domestic violence against Father, James and David; Mother manipulated 
Grace’s arrest; Mother’s mental health is unstable; and the conditions placed 
upon Grace by the Superior Court at the time she was sentenced for third 
degree assault have been satisfied. 
 
4
 
(6) 
Our review of a decision of the Family Court extends to a 
review of the facts and the law, as well as to deductions and inferences made 
by the trial judge.2  If the Family Court has applied the law correctly, our 
review is limited to abuse of discretion.3  We will not substitute our opinion 
for the findings of the trial judge where those findings are supported by the 
record and are the product of an orderly and logical reasoning process.4  In a 
case such as this where custody and residential placement are at issue, 
Delaware law requires the Family Court to render its decision in accordance 
with the child’s best interests.5   
 
(7) 
We have reviewed carefully the transcript of the January 4, 
2005 hearing in the Family Court and the Family Court’s written order dated 
January 4, 2005.6  Properly weighing the best interests of the children in this 
case in accordance with the required statutory factors, the Family Court 
manifestly acted was within its discretion in deciding this matter as it did.  In 
the absence of any error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Family 
Court, we find Father’s claims to be without merit.   
                                                 
2 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
3 Id. 
4 Id. 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 722(a) (1999). 
6 Following the hearing, the Family Court judge placed the rationale for his decision on 
the record.  His written order incorporates that rationale by reference. 
 
5
 
(8) 
It is manifest on the face of Father’s opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled 
by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is 
implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the appellee’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  The 
judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                  Justice