Title: Wayman v. Vaughn
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 553, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 2, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEITH O. WAYMAN, SR., 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 553, 2002 
 
Petitioner Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Family Court of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
the State of Delaware, in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Kent County in File No. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
CK01-03307. 
JUANITA VAUGHN and THE  
§ 
OFFICE OF THE CHILD  
 
§ 
ADVOCATE, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Respondents Below, 
 
§ 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: February 24, 2003 
Decided: 
April 2, 2003 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of April 2003, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
In 2002, the Family Court considered cross-petitions for 
custody that were filed by Keith O. Wayman, Sr. (Wayman) and Juanita 
Vaughn (Vaughn).  During the course of the custody proceedings, the 
Family Court appointed the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) to 
represent the interests of the minor child.  By decision dated September 12, 
 
2
2002, the Family Court awarded joint custody of the minor child to Wayman 
and Vaughn with primary placement of the child with Vaughn.  Wayman 
filed an appeal from the Family Court’s September 12, 2002 decision.   
(2) 
The Court has carefully considered the opening brief filed by 
Wayman, the motion to affirm filed by the OCA and the Family Court 
record.  The Court concludes that the Family Court’s September 12 decision 
represents a proper exercise of discretion, in full consideration of the factors 
set forth in title 13, section 722(a) of the Delaware Code.  To the extent the 
issues raised on appeal are factual, the record supports the trial judge’s 
factual findings.  To the extent the errors alleged on appeal are attributed to 
an abuse of discretion, the record does not support those assertions.  To the 
extent the issues on appeal are legal, the trial judge committed no legal 
errors of law.  Therefore, we conclude that the judgment of the Family Court 
should be affirmed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that OCA’s motion to affirm 
is GRANTED pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a).  The judgment of the 
Family Court as to Vaughn is AFFIRMED, sua sponte, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(b). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
3
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice