Title: Perry v. Alexander
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 541, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 6, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BERNARD M. PERRY,1  
 
Petitioner/Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RUTH ALEXANDER,  
 
          Respondent/Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 541, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN09-02441 
§  Petition No. 09-11052 
§ 
§ 
 
     Submitted: April 22, 2011 
        Decided: June 6, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 6th day of June 2011, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Bernard M. Perry, filed an appeal from the 
Family Court’s June 2, 2010 custody order and its July 29, 2010 order 
denying his motion for reargument.  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that Perry and appellee Ruth 
Alexander are the biological parents of two minor children---Nancy, born on 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated August 25, 
2010.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).  We hereby also assign pseudonyms to the minor children of the 
parties. 
 
2
January 7, 1995, and Nathan, born on June 19, 2002.  On March 30, 2009, 
Perry filed a petition for sole custody of Nancy and Nathan.  On April 30, 
2009, Alexander filed a response to the petition and a counterclaim 
requesting joint legal custody and that the children’s primary residence 
remain with her.2  On July 31, 2009, Perry requested a custody evaluation 
with Samuel Romirowsky, Ph.D., which the Family Court granted by order 
dated August 11, 2009. 
 
(3) 
On March 2, 2010, the Family Court, on Perry’s motion for 
emergency ex parte relief, issued an order prohibiting contact between 
Alexander’s boyfriend, John Graham,3 and the children.  Perry alleged that 
Graham and Alexander were cohabiting and that Graham had pleaded guilty 
to a sexual offense stemming from an incident in Maryland in 1998.  At a 
hearing later that month, the Family Court continued the no-contact 
provision of the order.            
 
(4) 
On May 6, 2010, the Family Court held a full hearing on 
Perry’s March 30, 2009 petition for custody and Alexander’s April 30, 2009 
answer and counterclaim.  Alexander was represented by counsel.  Both 
                                                 
2 An interim order dated June 8, 2009 had established joint legal custody and primary 
residence with Alexander. 
3 We have assigned a pseudonym to Alexander’s boyfriend. 
 
3
parties, as well as Graham, testified at the hearing.  In addition, the Family 
Court interviewed Nancy in camera.4   
 
(5) 
 The testimony presented at the hearing established the 
following.  Perry lives in a five-bedroom home in Bear, Delaware.  He rents 
the basement and at least one upstairs bedroom to individuals he located on 
Craigslist.  Perry testified that he can provide a better home environment for 
the children than Alexander.  He also stated that Alexander has been an 
abusive and neglectful parent.  Finally, Perry stated that Alexander’s older 
son from a previous relationship has a drug problem that was never 
appropriately addressed, casting doubt on her ability to be a good parent.  
 
(6) 
Nancy’s interview with the Family Court revealed that she does 
not have a good relationship with her father.  She views him as controlling 
and interested primarily in finances rather than relationships.  For example, 
Nancy stated that her father initiated the custody action primarily because he 
did not want to pay child support.  Nancy also stated that she was 
uncomfortable with the strangers living in her father’s house and worried 
that she would have no privacy if she stayed there.  Perry acknowledged that 
his relationship with Nancy was distant and that he had not made any 
                                                 
4 The Family Court declined to interview Nathan because of his age and maturity level. 
 
4
arrangements for counseling.  Although Dr. Romirowsky had completed a 
custody evaluation, it was not submitted at the hearing.   
 
(7) 
Alexander lives in a three-bedroom home in Middletown, 
Delaware.  The home is located on the same street as Alexander’s sister’s 
home.  The children spend a lot of time with their maternal aunt and her two 
children.  Alexander lives alone with her children, but has a relationship 
with Graham, who has taken an active role in the children’s lives.  
According to Nancy, the children have a good relationship with him.  
According to Graham, he has established a healthy relationship with both 
children and he encourages Nancy to keep in touch with her father.  Both 
children are well-adjusted to their home and school.  Alexander has been the 
children’s primary caretaker and has taken responsibility for managing all of 
the children’s activities and medical care.  Perry, on the other hand, has not 
fully exercised his visitation rights with the children.     
 
(8) 
  At the hearing, Graham testified at length about his 1998 
guilty plea.  His Maryland sentencing order was admitted into evidence.  As 
reflected in the order, he pleaded guilty to a fourth degree sexual offense, 
which did not require him to register as a sex offender.  Graham does not 
 
5
seek custody of the children, nor does he reside in Alexander’s home.5  
Graham testified at the hearing that the incident that led to his guilty plea, a 
sexual encounter with the minor sister of his girlfriend, occurred during a 
time in his life when he was abusing alcohol and he has no recollection of it.  
Since that time, Graham has completed treatment and abstains from drinking 
alcohol.     
 
(9) 
On June 2, 2010, the Family Court issued its order establishing 
joint legal custody and designating Alexander as the primary residential 
parent.  In its order, the Family Court found that Perry was not credible with 
respect to his motivation for requesting sole custody of the children.  The 
Family Court placed great weight on its interview with Nancy, whose 
relationship with Perry was quite strained.  The Family Court also noted that 
Perry’s work schedule is unpredictable, which would prevent him from fully 
participating in his children’s school and extracurricular activities.  Finally, 
the Family Court stated that Graham’s testimony concerning his guilty plea 
was credible and that he would pose no threat to the children.  Moreover, he 
demonstrated genuine concern for the children’s well-being.  Taking into 
consideration all relevant factors, including the best interests factors 
                                                 
5 Under Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §724A, there is a rebuttable presumption that no sex 
offender may be awarded sole or joint custody of a child, no child may primarily reside 
with a sex offender, and no sex offender may have unsupervised visitation with a child. 
 
6
contained in Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §722(a), the Family Court ordered that 
joint legal custody of the children would be maintained, Alexander would be 
awarded primary residential custody and Perry would have alternating week-
end visitation with Nathan.  Counseling for Perry and Nancy was ordered.  
Finally, the no-contact order between Graham and the children was lifted. 
 
(10) Following issuance of the Family Court’s custody decision, 
Perry filed a motion for reargument, which the Family Court denied on July 
29, 2010.  In its order, the Family Court denied Perry’s request that it 
consider additional evidence not presented at the hearing and denied Perry’s 
motion for reargument on the ground that Perry had not demonstrated in his 
motion that it had misinterpreted the facts or overlooked a controlling legal 
principle in its custody order.6      
 
(11) In his appeal, Perry claims that the Family Court’s ruling 
awarding primary residential custody to Alexander and its finding that 
Graham does not pose a threat to the children’s well-being constituted an 
abuse of discretion based upon numerous errors of fact and law.   
 
(12) To the extent that issues on appeal from a custody order of the 
Family Court implicate rulings of law, we review them de novo.7  To the 
extent that such issues implicate findings of fact, we conduct a limited 
                                                 
6 Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e). 
7 Stewart v. DSCYF, 991 A.2d 750, 755 (Del. 2010). 
 
7
review of the Family Court’s factual findings to assure that they are 
sufficiently supported by the record and are not clearly wrong.8  We will not 
disturb inferences and deductions made by the Family Court that are 
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical 
deductive process.9  If the Family Court correctly applied the law, our 
review is limited to abuse of discretion.10 
 
(13) We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, including 
the transcripts of the May 6, 2010 custody hearing and the transcript of the 
Family Court’s interview with Nancy.  We are satisfied that the factual 
findings contained in the Family Court’s June 2, 2010 custody order are 
fully supported by the record.  Moreover, we conclude that the Family Court 
properly weighed the best interests factors of Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §722(a) 
and committed no legal error or abuse of discretion.  To the extent that the 
Family Court misstated facts in its analysis, as argued by Perry, we conclude 
that any such misstatement did not weigh significantly in the Family Court’s 
best interests analysis and, therefore, constitutes harmless error.11  We also 
are satisfied that the Family Court properly denied Perry’s motion for 
reargument and, therefore, affirm its July 29, 2010 order. 
                                                 
8 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
9 Id. 
10 Id. 
11 Hall v. Wakley, Del. Supr., No. 540, 2007, Jacobs, J. (May 23, 2008). 
 
8
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice