IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WALTER SEECO

, 1

Respondent Below

Appellant,

v.

AN NE DRUMMEL

,

Petitioner Below

Appellee. §

§ No. 3, 2018

§

§

§ Court Below

— Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for Kent County

§ File No. C K 15

- 03051

§ Pet. No. 1 6

- 25891

§

§

Submitted: Ju ly 27, 2018

Decided: September 26 , 2018

Before STRIN E

, Chief Justice ; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR

, Justices.

O R D E R

U pon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears

to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Walter Seeco ( “ Father ” )

, filed this appeal from the

Family Court’s order dated December 14, 2017, granting , by default, sole custody

of the parties’ three

- year

- old son to the appellee, Ann e Drummel. On appeal, the

Father assert s that the Family Court erred in modifying the parties’ joint custody

arrangement and in reducing his visitation to one weekend per month. We find no

basis to overturn the Family Court’s default judgment. According ly, we affirm.

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties.2

(2) The record reflects that the parties entered a custody order by consent

in May 2016. Mo the r filed a petition for modification of custody a year later

. At

the time, the parties’ son was living with Mother in Delaware. Father lives and

works in Pennsylvania.

(3) The Family Court held a case management conference with the parties

on June 16, 2017. Mother appeared in person. Father appeared by telephone. After

talking through the parties’ issues and discussing the procedural next steps with

them, the Family Court set the matter down for a two

- hour trial on December 5, 2017

beginning at 9 AM. The Family Court informed Father that he would have to appear

in person on December 5 and that he could not participate by telephone. Fathe r

acknowledged that requirement.

(4) On December 5, 2017, Mother appeared at the hearing. Father did not.

The Family Court found that Father had been proper ly notified of the hearing, orally

and in writing, and stat ed that Father had not contacted the Court to request a

continuance or to provid e any explanation for his absence . Thus, t he Family Court

granted Mother’s petition for sole custody , finding the petition reasonable in light of

Mother’s uncontroverted proffer of evidence

.

(5 ) On appeal, Father asserts that he is a loving and responsible parent and

that the Family Court erred in granting Mother sole custody. But, Father does not

deny that he was properly notified about the hearing scheduled for the Family Court3

to consider Mo ther’s petition to modify custody and that he chose not to appear and

contest the petition

. Under these circumstances, given Father’s default, we find no

abuse of the Family Court’s discretion in granting Mother’s petition for sole

custody. 2 To the exten t Father has an explanation for his failure to appear , that issue

must be presented to and determined by the Family Court in the first instance through

a motion to reopen the judgment under Rule 60(b) , which must be properly

supported by facts justifying r elief from the default judgment

. 3

NOW, THE REFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

2 Stevens v. Brown , 2014 WL 7010036, *3 (Del. Nov. 25, 2014).

3 See Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 60(b) (201 8 ).