Title: Reston v. Gertner
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 452, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 25, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STEVEN RESTON, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
TAMMY GERTNER, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 452, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK05-02409 
§  Petition Nos. 05-28938 
§                        05-29433 
§                        05-37087 
§                        05-37399 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 9, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 25, 2007 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R1  
 
 
This 25th day of April 2007, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Steven Reston (“Father”), filed an 
appeal from the Family Court’s August 14, 2006 order establishing a 
visitation schedule for the two minor children of Father and respondent-
appellee, Tammy Gertner (“Mother”).  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.     
                                                 
1 The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties and their minor children.  
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that the parties separated in 2005 and were 
divorced on May 9, 2006.  They have two minor children born of their 
marriage---Andrew, 4 years old, and Rebecca, 1½ years old.  At the time of 
the Family Court hearing on August 1, 2006, the parties shared joint legal 
custody of the children and Mother had primary residential placement.   
 
(3) 
In November 2005, the Family Court entered a temporary 
consent order establishing Father’s visitation schedule with Andrew.  In 
January 2006, the Family Court entered a temporary contact order 
establishing Father’s visitation schedule with Rebecca.  Father had visitation 
with the children four nights a week---Andrew from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. and 
Rebecca from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.  Father also had visitation with Andrew every 
other weekend from Friday to Sunday.          
 
(4) 
Both Mother and Father had filed cross petitions for custody 
prior to the hearing.  However, by the time the hearing took place the only 
issue before the Family Court was visitation.2  The hearing transcript reflects 
that Father argued that he was entitled to increased visitation with the 
children whereas Mother argued that “standard visitation” was in the best 
                                                 
2 While Father’s pro se opening brief argues that he is entitled to “custody” or “shared 
placement” of the children, the transcript of the Family Court hearing clearly reflects that 
Father’s attorney’s sole request to the Family Court was an increase in Father’s visitation.  
Accordingly, the Family Court’s August 14, 2006 order dealt only with the issue of 
visitation.      
 
3
interests of both children.3  In this appeal, Father claims that he is as able a 
parent as Mother and, therefore, is entitled to have the children stay with him 
as much as they do with Mother.4      
 
(5) 
After a full hearing on the merits of the parties’ respective 
positions, the Family Court determined that the parties would continue to 
share joint legal custody of the children, with primary residential placement 
to remain with Mother.  The Family Court concluded that it would be 
detrimental to the children for Father’s visitation to be reduced and ordered 
that Father would continue with extensive visitation, including four nights a 
week with both children and every other week-end with Andrew and, after 
three months, every other week-end with Rebecca as well.    
 
(6) 
The Family Court has the authority to modify a prior visitation 
order if it is in the best interests of the child as set forth in Del. Code Ann. 
tit. 13, § 728(a).5  A consent order entered by the Family Court regarding the 
legal custody or residence of a child may be modified in accordance with the 
best interests of the child as set forth in Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 722.6  Our 
                                                 
3 “Standard visitation” consists of one overnight a week and every other weekend with 
the non-custodial parent. 
4 To the extent Father argues in this appeal that the Family Court should have considered 
the issue of custody and/or should have granted him “custody” or “shared placement” of 
the children, we conclude that that issue is not properly before this Court because it was 
not considered by the Family Court in the first instance.  Supr. Ct. R. 8.    
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 729(a).      
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 729(b). 
 
4
review of a decision of the Family Court extends to a review of the facts and 
the law, as well as to deductions and inferences made by the trial judge.7  If 
the Family Court has applied the law correctly, our review is limited to 
abuse of discretion.8  We will not substitute our opinion for the findings of 
the trial judge where those findings are supported by the record and are the 
product of an orderly and logical reasoning process.9 
 
(7) 
After carefully reviewing the record in this case, we conclude 
that the findings of the Family Court are supported by the record and are the 
product of an orderly and logical reasoning process.  Moreover, the record 
reflects that the Family Court properly weighed the best interests of the child 
factors and properly exercised its discretion in determining that the current 
custody and residential placement arrangements would continue and that 
Father would continue to have extensive visitation with Andrew and 
increased visitation with Rebecca, both in excess of the “standard visitation” 
requested by Mother.  We conclude, therefore, that the judgment of the 
Family Court must be affirmed. 
 
                                                 
7 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
8 Id. 
9 Id. 
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Justice