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’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 

to the Court that: 

(1) The appellant, Jill Naccari (“the Mother”), filed this appeal from a 

Family Court decision and order, dated October 12, 2018, granting the petition for 

visitation filed by Michael Quails (“the Father”). 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 the Father are the parents 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 mediator recommended—and the Family Court 

approved—an interim visitation order granting the Father non-overnight visitation 

every other weekend and one weekly non-overnight dinner with the Child. After a 

hearing on October 8, 2018, the Family Court 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 unless they are clearly erroneous and justice 

required they be overturned on appeal.4

 

(4) On appeal, the Mother argues that the Family Court erred by: (i) 

granting the Father visitation despite his admitted use of marijuana; (ii ) not granting 

emergency relief under Family Court Civil Rules 65.2 and 226; and (ii) violating the 

Delaware Child Support Formula. The Mother also appears to raise claims based on 

events occurring after issuance of the visitation order or other Family Court 

proceedings. Those claims are outside 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 visitation “consistent with the child’s 

best interests and maturity, which is designed 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 best interest factors under § 722 in determining that it was in 

the best interests of the Child to have visitation 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 system. To address the Mother’s concerns 

regarding Father’s marijuana use, the Family Court required that the Father’s 

girlfriend or mother supervise overnight visitation until he could return a clean drug 

test. The Mother has not shown that a parent’s marijuana use, by itself, precludes 

overnight visitation. The Family Court did 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, relatives and any other residents of the household; (iv) the 

child’s adjustment to his home, school and community; (v) the mental and physical health of all 

individuals involved; (vi) 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 Family Court erred in failing to grant 

emergency relief under Family Court Civil Rules 65.2 and 226 based on the Father’s 

marijuana use. This claim is without merit. Rule 226, which governs preliminary 

protective hearings in dependency, abuse, or neglect proceedings instituted by the 

Department of Services for Children, Youth, and their Families, 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 from 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 that the judgment of the Family 

Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice