Title: Reed v. Snyder
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 23, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 20, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
HEATHER REED,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
HOLDEN SNYDER, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 23, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK06-01054  
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 13, 2009 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: May 20, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of May 2009, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court 
that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Heather Reed (“Mother”), filed this appeal from 
an order of the Family Court, dated December 23, 2008, which denied 
Mother’s petition for modification of custody and granted the motion filed 
by appellee, Holden Snyder (“Father”), to relocate from Delaware to 
California with the parties’ two minor children.  Father has filed a motion to 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 7(d). 
 
2
affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is manifest on the face of 
Mother’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree and 
affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, pursuant to an order dated December 7, 
2006, the Family Court granted the parties joint custody of their two children 
but ordered that primary residential placement be with Father.  In that 
custody order, the Family Court noted that Mother had been convicted of 
domestic violence against Father and that she had been unable to overcome 
the rebuttable presumption against allowing primary residential placement of 
children in the home of a perpetrator of domestic violence.2   
(3) 
On May 8, 2008, less than two years from the date of the 
original custody order, Mother filed a petition to modify custody.  In her 
petition, she alleged that Father had left the children in her care since 
December 29, 2007 and that the children had been residing with her 
exclusively since that time.  Mother also filed an affidavit requesting priority 
scheduling or an ex parte order, alleging that return of the children to Father 
would be emotionally disruptive and would place the children in “an 
emotionally and physically abusive environment.”  The Family Court denied 
                                                 
2 13 Del. C. § 705A(b), which provides that “Notwithstanding other provisions of 
this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no child shall primarily reside with a 
perpetrator of domestic violence.” 
 
3
priority scheduling because Mother had not filed a proper motion and 
because her affidavit failed to establish the prospect of immediate harm. 
(4) 
In his answer to Mother’s motion for modification of custody, 
Father denied leaving the children in Mother’s care since December 2007.  
He stated that he had allowed the children to stay with Mother for a few days 
following his son’s birthday and that he let the children spend extra time 
with Mother as part of an agreement between the parties.  He denied any 
emotional or physical abuse and contended that he provided a safe and 
loving environment for the children.  
(5) 
On August 6, 2008, Father filed a motion to relocate.  The 
Family Court held a hearing on both motions on November 26, 2008.  At the 
hearing, Mother testified to an incident in which she alleged that Father beat 
the parties’ daughter, causing Mother to flee to a neighbor’s house and call 
police.  Mother, however, presented no police report to substantiate her 
allegations.  Moreover, when she called her neighbor to testify about the 
incident, the neighbor stated that Mother never called police and that the 
police never responded to her house.  Moreover, the neighbor denied 
witnessing Father trying to break in her door, as Mother testified.  Mother 
presented no other allegations of abusive conduct by Father. 
 
4
(6) 
Father denied Mother’s allegations that he had abandoned his 
children or abused them in any way.  Furthermore, Father offered evidence 
that he had secured a job in California making significantly more money 
than he was making in Delaware.  He also testified that he had several 
family members in California who would be involved in helping Father to 
care for the children.  Father also provided the trial court with a copy of the 
lease for his apartment in California to show that he had secured stable 
housing, which was contrary to Mother’s contention. 
(7) 
In ruling on the parties’ respective motions, the Family Court 
applied the “best interests of the child” factors found in 13 Del. C. § 722(a).  
The trial judge also considered that Father’s move to California would 
dramatically increase his ability to financially support his family.  
Ultimately, the Family Court did not find Mother’s testimony about alleged 
abuse or abandonment by Father to be credible and determined that it would 
be in the children’s best interests to remain in Father’s primary residential 
custody and to allow Father to relocate to California.  In so ruling, the 
Family Court delayed the children’s move to California until after the 
completion of their first semester break.  The Court also awarded Mother 
visitation with the children during every spring and winter break from school 
 
5
and for five weeks in the summer, with the children’s travel expenses to be 
paid for by Father. 
(8) 
Appellate review of an appeal from a custody decision extends 
to both the facts and the law, as well as to the inferences and deductions 
made by the Family Court after considering the weight and credibility of the 
testimony.3  To the extent the Family Court's decision implicates rulings of 
law, our review is de novo.4  Findings of fact will not be disturbed unless 
they are found to be clearly erroneous and justice requires that they be 
overturned.5  The judgment below will be affirmed “when the inferences and 
deductions upon which [the decision] is based are supported by the record 
and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.”6 
(9) 
In the letter-brief she filed on appeal, Mother does not raise any 
legal challenge to the Family Court’s decision.  Instead, Mother’s brief 
suggests that the Family Court erred in denying her petition for custody 
because Father is abusive.  In support of this allegation, Mother points to the 
same incident of alleged abuse that the Family Court did not find to be 
                                                 
3 Devon v. Mundy, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
4 Id. (citing In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995)). 
5 Id. (citing Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983)). 
6 Id. at 752-53. 
 
6
supported by any credible evidence presented by Mother at the hearing on 
her motion. 
(10) After careful consideration of the parties’ respective positions 
on appeal and after a thorough review of the record, the Court has 
determined that this appeal should be affirmed on the basis of the Family 
Court's well-reasoned decision dated December 23, 2008. It is clear that the 
trial judge considered the evidence under the appropriate legal standards and 
applied an orderly and logical reasoning process to arrive at findings and 
conclusions that are amply supported by the record. Accordingly, there is no 
basis upon which to disturb the Family Court's judgment. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice