IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JILL NACCARI, 1 Respondent Below, Appellant,

v. MICHAEL QUAILS, Petitioner Below, Appellee. § § No. 572, 2018 § § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. CN18-02284 § Petition No. 18-08173 § § § Submitted: August 23, 2019 Decided: October 24, 2019

Before VAUGHN , SEITZ , and TRAYNOR , Justices.

ORDER After consideration of the parties’ br iefs and the record on appeal, it appears

to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Jill Naccari (“the Mo ther”), filed this appeal from a Family Court decision and order, dated October 12, 2018, granting the petition for visitation filed by Michael Quails (“the Fa ther”). 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 Suprem e Court Rule 7(d).2 (2) The Mother and the Father are the pa rents of a child born in 2017 (“the Child”). On March 19, 2018, the Father filed a petition for visitation with the Child two days a week and every other weekend. The Mother opposed the petition. After an unsuccessful mediation, the mediat or recommended—and the Family Court approved—an interim visitation order gran ting the Father non-overnight visitation every other weekend and one weekly non-ove rnight dinner with the Child. After a hearing on October 8, 2018, the Family Cour t issued a decision granting the Father visitation with the Child every other weekend. This appeal followed. (3) 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 unle ss they are clearly erroneous and justice required they be ove rturned on appeal. 4 (4) On appeal, the Mother argues that the Family Court erred by: (i) granting the Father visitation despite his ad mitted use of marijuana; (ii ) not granting emergency relief under Family Court Civil Rules 65.2 and 226; and (ii) violating the Delaware Child Support Formul a. The Mother also appear s to raise claims based on events occurring after issuance of the vi sitation order or other Family Court proceedings. Those claims are out side the scope of this appeal.

2 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 3 Id. 4 Id.3 (5) The Family Court must determine vis itation “consistent with the child’s best interests and maturity, which is desi gned to permit and encourage the child to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that contact of the child with 1 parent would endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development.” 5 The best interest

factors are set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722(a). 6 The Family Court carefully considered § 728(a) and all of the be st interest factors under § 722 in determining that it was in

the best interests of the Child to have vis itation with the Father every other weekend. (6) In reaching this decision, the Family Court took the Father’s admitted marijuana use into account. The Father claimed that he only occasionally used marijuana when the Child was not in his care, but the Family Court noted that marijuana is illegal and stays in the syst em. To address the Mother’s concerns regarding Father’s marijuan a use, the Family Court re quired that the Father’s girlfriend or mother supervise overnight vi sitation until he could return a clean drug

test. The Mother has not s hown that a parent’s mariju ana use, by itself, precludes overnight visitation. The Family Court di d not err in granting the Father overnight

5 13 Del. C. § 728(a). 6 The § 722 factors include: (i) the wishes of the parents; (ii) the wishes of the child; (iii) the interaction of the child with his parents, relative s and any other residents of the household; (iv) the child’s adjustment to his home, school and comm unity; (v) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (v i) past and present compliance of the parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child; and (vii) evidence of domestic violence.4 visitation, subject to certain restrictions as long as he used marijuana, every other

weekend. (7) The Mother next claims that the Fa mily Court erred in failing to grant emergency relief under Family Court Civil Rules 65.2 a nd 226 based on the Father’s marijuana use. This claim is without merit. Rule 2 26, which governs preliminary protective hearings in dependency, abuse, or neglect proceedings instituted by the Department of Services for Children, Youth, and their Fa milies, does not apply here. Under Rule 65.2, the Family Court may grant emergency ex parte orders upon the motion of a party or the Court’s own motion, but the Mother does not identify what emergency relief was necessary . Assuming that the Mother wanted emergency relief to keep the Child away fro m the Father, she has not shown that the Father’s marijuana use merited such relief. (8) Finally, the Mother contends that the Family Court violated the Delaware Child Support Formula. The basis for this claim is unclear. It appears that the Mother has filed child support petitions, but this appeal arises from the visitation proceedings. To the extent the Mother claims that she is entitled to child support from the Father, that claim is outside the scope of this appeal. To the extent Mother claims that the Delaware Child Support Formula prohibits parents who do not pay child support from having visitation with their children, she is incorrect.5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED th at the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice