Title: Russell v. Stevens
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 509, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SUSAN RUSSELL,1 
 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 509, 2006     
 
Respondent Below, § 
 
Appellant, 
§ 
Court Below: Family Court of  
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware in and for 
              v. 
 
§ 
New Castle County 
 
 
§ 
WILLIAM C. STEVENS, 
§ 
C.A. No. CN05-05447 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 19, 2007 
 
 
Decided:     November 1, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 1st day of November 2007, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that: 
1.  Appellant, Susan Russell (“Mother”), appeals from a Family Court 
judgment granting William C. Stevens, Jr. (“Father”) primary residential 
placement of the parties’ daughter, Carla, and providing Mother with standard 
visitation rights.  On appeal, Mother contends that the Family Court abused its 
discretion. We find no merit to Mother’s contention and affirm. 
                                                 
1 This Court, sua sponte, has assigned pseudonyms to the parties under SUPR. CT. R. 7(d). 
 
 
2
 
2. 
The parties are the parents of Carla, a 15 month old child at the time of 
the hearing held in July 2006.  In October 2005, Father filed a petition seeking 
primary residential custody of Carla, who had resided with Mother her entire life 
and had visited with Father periodically.  Carla was born with two significant 
health problems—club feet, which were operated upon in December 2005, and 
holes in her heart, some of which apparently had healed without the need for 
surgery.  Father was represented by counsel at the hearing; Mother was not. 
 
3. 
Mother and Father both testified, as did Father’s own father, Mother’s 
former boyfriend, and Mother’s own mother.  The hearing transcript reflects 
seriously inadequate communication between Mother and Father concerning 
Carla’s health issues.  There is no evidence that Mother ever failed to have Carla’s 
medical problems addressed appropriately, however.  Mother lives in a trailer park 
with her parents and her other minor child (Ellen), whose father visits from time to 
time.  Before Father was awarded primary residential custody of Carla, Mother and 
the two children (Ellen and Carla) shared a room in the trailer and each child had 
her own bed and dresser.  There was evidence that Mother and her parents smoked 
marijuana, but recently stopped. 
 
4. 
Father lives in a three-bedroom house with his parents.  Carla has her 
own room in that house.  Father has a felony record and, for that reason, does not 
drive.  His extensive criminal record involves burglary, theft, various alcohol-
 
3
related charges and a menacing charge that was pending at the time of the hearing.  
Mother and Father each testified to concerns regarding Carla’s health and safety 
while Carla was staying with the other parent.  Many of their concerns appear to be 
based on speculation rather than actual evidence.  Mother and Father are both 
currently employed.  Father works with his father as a carpenter and Mother works 
at Wendy’s.  Both Mother and Father demonstrated a genuine concern for Carla’s 
welfare.  
 
5. 
Mother appealed from the Family Court’s August 21, 2006 custody 
order, which transferred residential custody of Carla from Mother to Father.  On 
May 14, 2007, we remanded to the Family Court to revisit its custody decision 
appropriately balancing statutory factors in accordance with the best interests of 
the child. 
 
6. 
On remand on June 27, 2007, and after considering the eight interests-
of-the-child factors under 13 Del. C. § 722(a),2 the Family Court awarded primary 
residential placement of Carla to Father, with standard visitation rights to Mother.   
                                                 
2 13 Del. C. § 722(a) provides that:  
 
(a) The Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a 
child in accordance with the best interests of the child.  In determining the 
best interests of the child, the Court shall consider all relevant factors 
including: 
 
(1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and 
residential arrangements; 
 
4
 
7. 
Mother then filed the present appeal, claming that the Family Court’s 
custody decision was an abuse of discretion, and not the product of an orderly and 
logical deductive process, because the Family Court failed to:  (i) properly consider 
and balance the factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722(a); and (ii) explain in detail the 
reasons for its custody determination, as required by this Court.  Those contentions 
are next discussed. 
 
8. 
Mother first claims that the Family Court’s award of primary residential 
custody to Father was an abuse of discretion because the Court failed to properly 
consider and balance the factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722(a).  Specifically, 
Mother argues that the Family Court did not explain how its decision 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian(s) and residential 
arrangements; 
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her 
parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabiting in the relationship 
of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other residents of 
the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best 
interests; 
(4) The child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community; 
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved; 
(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and 
responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title; 
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this 
title; and 
(8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the 
household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of 
guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense. 
 
5
“counterbalanced” its findings that four of the eight factors weighed slightly in 
Father’s favor while factor number eight weighed heavily in Mother’s favor.3     
 
9. 
The scope of this Court’s review of a Family Court judgment includes a 
review of both law and fact.4  If the Family Court correctly applied the law, we 
review the Family Court’s decisions concerning child custody for abuse of 
discretion.  The judgment of the trial judge will not be disturbed if it is a product of 
a logical and orderly reasoning process.5  “It is only when the rulings of law or the 
                                                 
3 In its supplemental custody decision, the Family Court concluded that: 
 
 
Each factor is unique and cannot be given equal weight, thus, it is difficult, if not 
impossible, to balance one against another.  However, the Court does look at the 
number of factors that favor each party and whether or not there are significant 
facts which may tip the scale in one parent’s favor.  For example, the fact that 
Father has an extensive criminal history weighs heavily in determining the best 
interest of the child, while the wishes of the child is [sic] given no weigh in this 
particular case. 
 
However, in analyzing the above best interest factors, the Court has determined 
that four of the eight best interest factors weigh in favor of Father (1, 3, 4 and 6), 
while only one factor weighs in favor of Mother (8).  As stated in the previous 
paragraph, not all of the factors are given equal weight, but the Court has 
determined that, overall, it is in [Carla’s] best interest for Father to have primary 
residency and for both parties to share joint custody of Carla.  Mother’s visitation 
shall occur pursuant to the August 21, 2006 Order.   
 
Russell v. Stevens, Del. Fam., No. CN05-05447, Buckworth, J. (June 27, 2007), pp. 5-6. 
 
 
4 See Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
 
5 See Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186-87 (Del. 1991). 
 
 
6
findings in the Family Court are clearly wrong and the doing of justice requires 
their overturn that we are free to make contradictory findings.”6 
 
10. We have held that “[t]he statute anticipates that the Family Court will 
weigh the amalgam of all of the listed best interest factors that favor one parent 
against the amalgam of factors that favor the opposing parent and all other relevant 
evidence and only then make an independent determination of the placement that 
will be in the best interest of the children.”7  The Family Court must consider “each 
of the eight ‘best interest’ factors under 13 Del. C. § 722(a), none of which is 
solely determinative.”8  The law vests wide discretion in the trial court to 
determine where custody shall be placed. 
 
11. In its decision on remand, the Family Court listed each statutory factor 
and reviewed all of the factors relevant to performing a best interest analysis under 
13 Del. C. § 722(a).  Specifically, the Court found that factor number eight 
weighed heavily in favor of Mother, given Father’s two driving under the influence 
convictions and his felony convictions of burglary and theft.  The Family Court 
also clearly noted that four of the eight best interest factors weigh in favor of 
Father, while only one factor weighs in favor of Mother.  Because “[t]he trial judge 
                                                 
6 Delong v. Stanley, 1997 Del. LEXIS 374, at *2 (Del. Supr.), citing Levitt v. Bouvier, 287 A.2d 
671, 673 (Del. 1972). 
 
7 Holmes v. Wooley, 2002 Del. LEXIS 2, at *4 (Del. Supr.) (emphasis in original). 
 
8 Clark v. Wright, 2007 Del. LEXIS 370, at *12 (Del. Supr.). 
 
 
7
was not required to make an explicit reference to the exact weight [awarded], to 
each factor,”9 the Family Court properly concluded that “overall, it is in [Carla’s] 
best interest for Father to have primary residency and for both parties to share joint 
custody of [Carla].”10  Therefore, we conclude that the Family Court properly held 
that the best interests of Carla were served by awarding primary residential 
placement of Carla to Father. 
 
12. Alternatively, Mother claims that the Family Court’s award of primary 
residential custody to Father was an abuse of discretion because the Family Court 
failed to explain in great detail the reasons for its custody determination, as 
required by this Court.  In our view, that argument lacks merit as well.  Here, 
Mother simply misstates the record, because the Family Court did explicitly list 
and take into account all the statutory factors, and also unequivocally explained the 
reasons in awarding the primary residential placement to Father.   
 
13. Regarding the four factors found to tip in Father’s favor, the Family 
Court detailed the testimony influencing its decision.  Specifically, the Family 
Court found that:  (i) Mother’s trailer was overcrowded and filthy and the minor 
                                                 
9 Vargas v. Gamino, 2007 Del. LEXIS 3, at *3 (Del. Supr.) (citing Gomez v. Morning, 2002 Del. 
LEXIS 223, at *2 (Del. Supr)). 
 
10Russell v. Stevens, Del. Fam., No. CN05-05447, Buckworth, J. (June 27, 2007), p. 6. 
 
 
 
8
child was usually unbathed when Father picked her up from that residence;11 (ii) 
Mother and Maternal Grandmother fed the 15-month old minor child an unhealthy 
diet;12 (iii) Mother and Maternal Grandmother smoked cigarettes in the bedroom 
where the minor child sleeps;13 (iv) Maternal Grandmother would care for the 
minor child more than Mother;14 (v) Mother’s residence increased the minor’s 
exposure to second-hand smoke;15 and (vi) Mother allowed the minor child to be 
regularly exposed to her abusive ex-boyfriend.16  Given these findings, this Court 
is satisfied that the Family Court properly and fully explained in detail its decision 
to award Father primary residential placement of Carla. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of Family Court 
is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                      Justice 
                                                 
11Id., p. 3. 
 
12 Id.  
 
13 Id.  
 
 
 
14 Id., p. 4. 
 
15 Id., p. 5. 
 
16 Id.