IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

MICHAEL NEWMAN,1

Petitioner BelowAppellant, 

v. 

SARAH NEWMAN, 

Respondent BelowAppellee. 

§ 

§ No. 119, 2016 

§ 

§ 

§ Court Below—Family Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ File No. CN10-01567 

§ Petition No. 14-23105 

§ 

§ 

Submitted: October 7, 2016 

Decided: November 29, 2016 

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

ORDER

This 29th day of November 2016, upon consideration of the parties’ 

briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) The appellant, Michael Newman (“the Father”), filed this 

appeal from the Family Court’s order dated February 15, 2016, denying his 

petition for modification of a prior custody order. After careful 

consideration, we find no merit to the appeal. Thus, 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 record reflects that the parties are the parents of a son, born 

June 28, 2001, and a daughter, born November 19, 2004 (collectively, “the 

Children”). The parties were married in 2001 and were divorced on 

September 2, 2010. On January 26, 2011, the parties signed a stipulation 

agreeing to joint legal custody of the Children with shared residential 

placement. The Family Court entered the parties’ stipulation as an order of 

the court. 

(3) In January 2012, the Father filed a petition to modify custody, 

which the parties again resolved by stipulated order dated August 7, 2012, 

agreeing to continue joint legal custody of the Children with shared 

residential placement. The Father then filed another petition to modify 

custody in October 2012. After a full hearing, the Family Court entered an 

order on March 20, 2013, denying the Father’s petition and ordering the 

parties to continue joint legal custody with shared residential placement. On 

August 27, 2014, the Father filed a petition to modify the 2013 custody 

order. After a hearing, the Family Court denied that petition on February 15, 

2016. This appeal followed. 

(4) Although it is not entirely clear, the Father appears to argue in 

his opening brief on appeal that the Family Court erred by failing to enforce 

a provision of the 2012 stipulated order, which provided that the Father 
3 

would be given primary residential custody of the Children if the Mother 

failed to move back to Delaware before the start of the Children’s 2012-

2013 school year. The Father implies that the Mother failed to comply with 

the 2012 custody order and, as a result, he was entitled to primary custody of 

the Children. 

(5) Any issues related to the 2012 custody order are moot, 

however, because the 2012 judgment was superseded by the 2013 order and 

the 2016 order, which is currently before the Court on appeal.2

 With respect 

to the 2016 custody order, the Father appears to argue that the Family Court 

did not accept his evidence that the Mother previously had been evicted 

from several properties, that she frequently had her utilities cut-off, that she 

was causing stress for the Children by continuing to make false allegations 

in the custody proceedings, and that the Children’s grades were “declining.” 

The Father requests “retroactive” custody, as well as child support.3

(6) In reviewing a motion for modification of custody that is filed 

within two years of the Family Court’s most recent custody order entered 

after a full hearing, the Family Court “shall not modify its prior order unless 

it finds, after a hearing, that continuing enforcement of the prior order may 

 

2

Randall v. Randall, 2012 WL 4377844 (Del. Sept. 25, 2012). 

3

 The issue of child support was not a matter that was raised to or decided by the Family 

Court in response to the Father’s petition to modify custody. Accordingly, we do not 

reach the issue of child support in this appeal. See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8. 
4 

endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair his or her 

emotional development.”4

 In this case, the Family Court concluded, after 

considering all of the evidence, that the Father had not sustained his burden 

of showing that the March 2013 order granting the parties joint custody with 

shared residential placement endangered the Children’s physical health or 

threatened their emotional development. 

(7) Our standard of review of a decision of the Family Court 

extends to a review of the facts and law, as well as inferences and deductions 

made by the trial judge.5

 We have the duty to review the sufficiency of the

evidence and to test the propriety of the findings.6

 Findings of fact will not 

be disturbed on appeal unless the findings are clearly erroneous.7 We will 

not substitute our opinion for the inferences and deductions of the trial judge 

if those inferences are supported by the record.8

 (8) In this case, the Family Court held a hearing on the Father’s 

petition to modify custody on November 25, 2015. The transcript of that 

hearing reflects that both parties appeared, without counsel, and were the 

only two witnesses to testify. At the parties’ request, the Family Court 

conducted an interview of both children on January 20, 2016. On February 

 

4

 13 Del. C. 729(c)(1) (2009). 

5

Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983).

6 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 

7 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 

8 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d at 1204.
5 

15, 2016, the Family Court issued a twenty-six page opinion setting forth its 

findings and conclusions. The court reviewed all of the parties’ testimony 

and evidence and concluded that the Father had failed to sustain his burden 

of showing that joint custody with shared residential placement was 

endangering the physical health or significantly impairing the emotional 

development of the Children. 

 (9) Among other things, the Family Court found that, although the 

Mother had moved several times in a short period, she had never been 

homeless or subjected the Children to inappropriate housing arrangements. 

The court noted that, while both parties cared for the Children, their joint 

conduct contributed to the Children’s feelings of anxiety and their 

fluctuating grades. In ordering the parties to maintain joint custody with 

shared residential placement, the Family Court gave great weight to the 

Children’s expressed wishes to continue the existing custody arrangement so 

that they could spend equal time with both of their parents. 

 (10) After careful review of the record and the parties’ contentions 

on appeal, we hold that the Family Court’s factual findings are amply 

supported by the record, and we find no basis to disturb those findings on 

appeal. The Family Court properly applied the law to the facts in 

concluding that Father failed to sustain his burden of proving that continued 
6 

enforcement of the March 2013 order awarding joint custody of the Children 

with shared residential placement endangered the Children’s physical health 

or significantly threatened their emotional development. We find no basis to 

overturn the Family Court’s judgment. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Family Court is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

 Justice