Title: Evans v. Evans
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 651, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 24, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARGARET EVANS, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RANDOLPH EVANS, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 651, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN06-01469 
§  Petition Nos. 06-03936 
§                        06-14374 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 14, 2007 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    October 24, 2007 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R1  
 
 
This 24th day of October 2007, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the record below,2 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, Margaret Evans (“Mother”), filed an 
appeal from the Family Court’s December 1, 2006 order, which entered as a 
final order the Family Court’s March 31, 2006 interim visitation order, with 
the following two modifications.  First, the petitioner-appellee, Randolph 
Evans (“Father”), was granted an additional Sunday overnight, and second, 
                                                 
1 The parties were assigned pseudonyms by Order of this Court dated December 15, 
2006.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 On June 8, 2007, the Clerk issued a delinquency notice with respect to the appellee’s 
answering brief.  When the appellee did not respond to the notice, the Court ordered, on 
June 25, 2007, that the appeal would be decided on the basis of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the Family Court record. 
 
2
the summer visitation schedule was modified to provide for alternating 
weeks for each parent.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we 
affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Mother and Father were married on 
May 25, 2003.  One child was born of the marriage---Dianne, born July 30, 
2004.  Mother and Father were divorced on September 5, 2006.  In February 
and May 2006, respectively, Father and Mother filed petitions for visitation.  
Following a mediation conference, an interim order was entered by the 
Family Court providing that Dianne would visit with Father on Friday 
through Sunday at 7:00 p.m. on alternating week-ends, with an overnight 
every Tuesday and every other Thursday.  The order also set a holiday 
visitation schedule.   
 
(3) 
On November 30, 2006, a hearing was held on the parties’ cross 
petitions for visitation.  The transcript of the hearing reflects that both 
Mother and Father testified, as did Dianne’s paternal grandmother 
(“Grandmother”).  The unrefuted testimony was that Dianne is a happy, 
well-adjusted child who enjoys spending time with both Mother and Father.   
 
(4) 
Both Father and Grandmother testified that Father takes Dianne 
to Grandmother’s house for Sunday dinner, where Dianne spends time with 
her cousins.  Father testified that Dianne enjoys spending time at Sunday 
 
3
dinner and is not “responding well” to having to leave early in order to 
return to Mother’s house in Newark, Delaware, by 7:00 p.m..  He testified 
that he lives half a block from Dianne’s daycare, so it would be easy for him 
to take her there on Monday morning.  Father stated that his sole interest is 
to spend more time with Dianne, and that he would not seek a reduction in 
his child support obligation as a result of the additional Sunday overnight.  
Father, finally, requested summer visitation of alternating weeks for each 
parent.    
 
(5) 
Mother opposed Father’s request for an additional Sunday 
overnight on the ground that it was unsettling for Dianne to be moved from 
place to place so frequently.  Mother admitted, however, that Dianne had 
adjusted well to the visitation schedule.  Mother asked that Dianne’s 
visitation with Father on Thursdays be eliminated, but offered no basis for 
that request except that Dianne needs “stability.” 
 
(6) 
At the end of the hearing, the Family Court Judge found the 
following:  First, eliminating the Thursday visitation with Father was not in 
Dianne’s best interest because that would result in Dianne not seeing her 
Father for almost an entire week.  Second, it was in Dianne’s best interest to 
have time with her cousins on Sunday without having to rush back to 
 
4
Mother’s house.  Third, it was in Dianne’s best interest to have alternating 
weeks with each parent. 
 
(7) 
On appeal, Mother advances a number of claims, which may 
fairly be summarized as follows:  a) the Family Court did not consider the 
best interests of Dianne when it gave Father an additional Sunday overnight; 
b) the Family Court did not provide an adequate rationale for changing the 
summer visitation schedule from what was provided in the interim order; c) 
the Family Court considered irrelevant evidence in determining what was in 
Dianne’s best interests; and d) the Family Court should have ordered that 
Dianne would spend an overnight with Father every Tuesday, spend every 
other week-end with Father, and returning on Sunday to Mother, and spend 
35 days with Father in the summer. 
 
(8) 
The Family Court is statutorily required to “. . . determine . . . 
with which parent the child shall primarily reside and a schedule of 
visitation with the other parent, 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. . . .”3  An order 
                                                 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 728(a). 
 
5
concerning visitation may be modified at any time if the best interests of the 
child would be served by such modification.4          
 
(9) 
This Court’s review of appeals from the Family Court extends 
to a review of the facts and the law as well as a review of the inferences and 
deductions made by the judge.5  This Court will not disturb findings of fact 
unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be overturned.6  
If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, the standard of review is 
abuse of discretion.7  Errors of law are reviewed de novo.8 
 
(10) We have reviewed the record carefully and find no error or 
abuse of discretion on the part of the Family Court.  The record clearly 
reflects that the Family Court modified the interim visitation order in a 
manner consistent with the child’s best interests and in a manner that 
encourages frequent and meaningful contact with both parents. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       Justice  
                                                 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 729(a) and 722. 
5 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
6 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
7 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186 (Del. 1991). 
8 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995).