Title: Frank v. Stewart
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 27, 2013
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 24, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CYNTHIA FRANK,1  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RACHEL STEWART,  
 
           Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 27, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN10-04142 
§  Petition No. 11-01217 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: May 9, 2013 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 24, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 24th day of May 2013, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Cynthia Frank, filed an appeal from 
the Family Court’s December 10, 2012 order denying her request for 
unsupervised visitation with her granddaughter, Caroline.  The respondent-
appellee, Rachel Stewart, Caroline’s mother, has moved to affirm the 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated January 22, 
2013.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).  The Court hereby also assigns a pseudonym to the minor child. 
 
2
judgment of the Family Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
the opening brief that this appeal is without merit.2  We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that, in January 2011, Frank filed 
a petition for third-party/grandparent visitation in the Family Court.  In 
February 2012, the petition was consolidated with Stewart’s petition for 
custody and the petition of Caroline’s father for visitation.  In March 2012, 
the Family Court entered a temporary order permitting Frank visitation with 
Caroline during the father’s scheduled visitation at the Family Visitation 
Center.  Both petitions were then consolidated for purposes of a review 
hearing in the Family Court on September 6, 2012.  On December 10, 2012, 
the Family Court issued its order denying Frank’s petition for unsupervised 
visitation with Caroline.  This appeal followed. 
 
(3) 
In her appeal, Frank claims that the Family Court erred and 
abused its discretion when it denied her petition for unsupervised visitation 
with her granddaughter.   
 
(4) 
In order to obtain third-party visitation, the petitioner must first 
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that such visitation would be in 
the child’s best interests pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §722.3  The 
Family Court must then find one of the following factors: a) the parent 
                                                 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §2412(a) (1). 
 
3
consents to the third-party visitation; b) the child is dependent, neglected or 
abused in the parent’s care; c) the parent is deceased; or d) the parent objects 
to the visitation; however, the petitioner has demonstrated, by clear and 
convincing evidence, that the objection is unreasonable; and has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the visitation will not 
substantially interfere with the parent/child relationship.4 
 
(5) 
We have reviewed the entire transcript of the September 6, 
2012 hearing in the Family Court.  The transcript reflects that Caroline has 
significant medical issues, including severe stomach and breathing 
problems.  She must eat a specialized diet and has doctor’s appointments 
twice a week.  As a result of Caroline’s stomach problems, called fetal 
gastroschisis, she is at risk of an intestinal blockage or hernia.  As a result of 
her breathing problems, called super ventricular tachycardia, she must be 
treated with a nebulizer two to six times a day and takes five different 
medications.  Without the medications, she risks a severe asthma attack.   
 
(6) 
At the hearing, Frank presented no evidence that she had 
knowledge of Caroline’s specialized diet or her various medications.  She 
presented no evidence that she would know what to do in the event of a 
medical emergency.  In its December 10, 2012 decision, the Family Court 
                                                 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §2412(a) (2). 
 
4
found that Frank had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence 
that unsupervised visitation was in Caroline’s best interests.  Nor had Frank 
demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Stewart’s objection to 
her having unsupervised visitation with Caroline was unreasonable. 
 
(7) 
On appeal from a Family Court decision, this Court reviews the 
facts and the law as well as the inferences and deductions made by the 
Family Court.5  This Court will not disturb the Family Court’s findings of 
fact unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be 
overturned.6  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.7  If the Family Court 
has correctly applied the law, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.8  
 
(8) 
Our review of the submissions of the parties, the Family 
Court’s December 10, 2012 decision and the complete transcript of the 
September 6, 2012 hearing does not reveal any error or abuse of discretion 
on the part of the Family Court.  We, therefore, conclude that the Family 
Court properly determined that, given Caroline’s numerous medical 
problems and Frank’s lack of knowledge about them, Frank’s petition for 
unsupervised visitation should be denied.   
                                                 
5 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
6 Id. 
7 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
8 Forrester v. Forrester, 953 A.2d 175, 179 (Del. 2008). 
 
5
 
(9) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented are controlled by settled 
Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, there 
was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice