IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PAIGE WORTHINGTON, 1 Respondent Below, Appellant,

v. GAVIN E. BACHMAN, Petitioner Below, Appellee. § § No. 499, 2016 § § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware § § File No. CK15-01875 § Petition No. 15-29606 § § § Submitted: March 24, 2017 Decided: May 31, 2017

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VAUGHN , and SEITZ , Justices.

ORDER

This 31 st day of May 2017, upon considera tion of the opening brief and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Paige Worthington (“ the Mother”), filed this appeal from an August 23, 2016 Family Court orde r granting the petition for custody filed by the appellee, Gavin E. Bachman (“th e Father”), and denying the Mother’s counterclaim for custody and relocation a nd a September 14, 20 16 order denying the Mother’s motion for reargument. We concl ude that the Family Court did not err in awarding the parents joint custody and shared residential placement of their son, but

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Suprem e Court Rule 7(d).2 did err in failing to enter a daily or week ly residential schedul e and vacation schedule in the event the parties were unable to agree upon a schedule. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part. (2) The parties are the parents of a thr ee-year old son (“the Child”). On September 18, 2015, the Father filed a petiti on for custody. The Father sought shared custody of three days a week and full custody if the Mother moved out of state. In her answer and counterclaim to the petiti on, the Mother sought residential and primary custody of the Child. The Mother also requested permission to relocate to

Florida with the Child. In an interim consent custody orde r, the parties agreed to joint custody with the Father having the S on for two overnight visits every week and every other weekend. (3) The Family Court held a hearing on the Father’s petition on June 29, 2016. The Family Court heard testim ony from the parties, the maternal grandmother, and the girlfriend of the Moth er’s brother. In an order dated August 23, 2016, the Family Court concluded that it would be in the Child’s best interests for the Mother and the Father to have join t custody and shared residential placement. The Family Court denied the Mother’s petiti on to relocate with the Child to Florida, finding that the negative impact of the relo cation on the Child’s relationship with the Father outweighed the benefits of relocati on and would not be in the Child’s best

interests.3 (4) On September 2, 2016, the Mother f iled a motion for reargument. The Father filed his response to the motion on September 13, 2016. The Family Court denied the motion for reargument on Septem ber 14, 2016. This appeal followed. (5) 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. 4 (6) Under Delaware law, the Family C ourt must determin e legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the best interests of the child. The criteria for determining the best interests of a child are set forth in 13 Del.

C. § 722. 5 In deciding a request for permissi on to relocate with a child, the Family Court may, but is not required to, consid er the factors set forth in the Model

Relocation Act. 6

2 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 The best interest factors includ e: (i) the wishes of the parent s regarding the child’s custody and residential arrangements; (ii) th e wishes of the child regardi ng 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 hous ehold or persons who may significa ntly affect the child’s best interests; (iv) the child’s adjustment to he r 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 responsibil ities to the child under 13 Del. C. § 701; (vii) eviden ce of domestic violence; and (viii) the criminal history of any party or any reside nt of the household. 13 Del. C. § 722. 6 Potter v. Branson , 2005 WL 1403823, at *2 (Del. June 13, 2005) (holding the Family Court has discretion to consider additional factors like the Model Relocati on Act factors as long as it considers the mandated Section 722 factors). The Model Relocation Act factors include: (i) the nature, quality, extent of involvement and duration of relationship of the ch ild with each parent;4 (7) On appeal, the Mother first argues that the Family Court’s decision was not the result of an orderly and logical deductive reasoning process. Specifically, the Mother contends the Family Court’s analysis of the Section 722 and Model

Relocation Act factors failed to consid er that the Father’s testimony was uncorroborated, Mother had pr eviously lived in Florida fo r six years, the Father was

aware the Mother wished to move to Flor ida before the Child was born, the Mother had family in Florida, the Child’s siblings would be relocating to Florida with the Mother, the Mother was scheduled to take the Florida Real Esta te Brokers License test, and there would no need for the Moth er to obtain daycare in Florida because

she could set her own schedule as a real esta te broker. The Mother also notes that

the Child has extensive contact with numer ous relatives on her side of the family,

while the Father testified that the Child only had limited contact with one of his relatives (his adult daughter). The Mother further contends the Family Court should have given more weight to the fact that the Father had not obtained a bed or room for the Child until shortly before the June 29 th hearing. The Mother also emphasizes

(ii) the age, developmental stage, needs of the ch ild, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development; (iii) the f easibility of preserving the child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent; (iv) the child ’s preference, considering age and maturity level; (v) whether there is an esta blished pattern of the person seeking relocation either to promote or thwart the child’s relation wi th the other parent; (vi) whether the relocation of the child will enhance the genera l quality of life for both the part y seeking the relocation and the child, including but not limited to financial, em otional, or educational opportunity (including cultural opportunities and access to extended family); (vii) the reasons for seeking relocation; and (vii) any other factor affecting the interest of the child. Proposed Model Relocation Act § 405, 10 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law 1, at *18 (1998).5 that the Father has a good rela tionship with the Child due to the Mother’s flexibility in the face of the Father’s constantly changing work schedule and that she would make sure the Child had frequent contact with the Father if she relocated to Florida. (8) After a careful review of the Moth er’s arguments and the record, we

find no error or abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s ruling. The Family Court correctly applied the law and considered the best interest factors under 13 Del. C. § 722. The Family Court concluded that joint custody and shared residential placement was in the best interests of th e Child because the factors did not weigh heavily in either party’s favor and both the Mother and the Father appeared able to provide a loving, supportive relationship for the Child. As to the Mother’s request to relocate to Florida with the Child, the Family Court recognized there were some benefits to the proposed relocation, but th at those benefits were outweighed by the negative impact of the relocation on the Fa ther’s relationship with the Child. (9) The Mother’s disagreements with the Family Court’s findings do not justify reversal of its decision. It is a pparent from the Family Court order that the Family Court carefully reviewed the eviden ce before it, made f actual findings that are supported by the record, and applied th e correct legal sta ndard. When the determination of facts turns on a questi on of credibility and the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of witnesses appearing before the trial judge, this Court6 will not substitute its opinion fo r that of the trial judge. 7 We must therefore defer to the Family Court’s decision that it was in th e Child’s best interests for the parents to have joint custody and shar ed residential placement. 8 We also find no error in the Family Court’s denial of the Mother’s motion for reargument. (10) Finally, the Mother argues that the Fa mily Court erred in not specifying a complete visitation schedule between the parents and the Child as required by 13

Del. C. § 728(a). The Family Court encouraged the parents “to create an agreed equitable written visitation sc hedule that fits their circ umstances and their child’s life, with the following serving as a sc hedule when the parents cannot agree.” 9 The schedule entered by the court covered holidays, birthdays, and school breaks, among other things, but did not provide a daily or weekly residential schedule or vacation schedule in the absence of the parties’ ag reement. The Family Court should enter a daily or weekly residential schedule and vacation schedule to apply if the parties cannot agree on a schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED th at the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. The matter is REMANDED

7 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.) , 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 8 See, e.g., Price v. Boulden , 2014 WL 2014 WL 3566030, at *9 (Del. July 14, 2014) (deferring to the Family Court’s decision where the record reflect ed that the Family Court made factual findings supported by the record and applie d the correct legal standard); Clark v. Clark , 47 A.3d 513, 517– 21 (Del. 2012) (deferring to the Family Court’s factual finding that a custody arrangement was in the best interests of the children). 9 G.B. v. P.W. , File No. CK15-01875, Petition No. 15-29606, Or der at 6 (Del. Fam. Ct. Aug. 23, 2016).7 to the Family Court to enter a daily or weekly residential schedule and vacation

schedule. Jurisdictio n is not retained.

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