Title: Taylor v. Taylor
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 397, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SUSAN L. TAYLOR, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
IVAN TAYLOR, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 397, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK01-04610 
§  Petition Nos. 04-27620 
§                        04-33118 
§                        05-04250 
§                        06-02560 
§                        06-02562 
§                        04-28723 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 27, 2007 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 5, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R1  
 
 
This 5th day of October 2007, upon consideration of the opening brief 
and appendix and the record below, it appears to the Court that:2 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Susan L. Taylor (“Mother”), filed an 
appeal from the Family Court’s June 27, 2006 order, which dismissed three 
                                          
 
1 The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties and their minor children.  
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 Following the withdrawal of the appellee’s counsel, the Court received an out-of-time 
motion from the appellee requesting an extension of time to file the answering brief.  The 
appellee was given until April 27, 2007 to file his brief.  On May 7, 2007, the Clerk’s 
Office sent a brief delinquency notice to the appellee.  In the absence of any response 
from the appellee, the Clerk notified the parties on May 18, 2007 that the matter would be 
decided on the basis of the opening brief and the record. 
 
2
of her petitions for a rule to show cause and two of her petitions for a 
modification of custody, and which granted the petition of the respondent-
appellee, Ivan Taylor (“Father”), for a modification of visitation.  We find 
no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that the parties are divorced and have two 
children born of their marriage, Betsy, age 10, and Anna, age 8.  Mother is 
an Air Force veteran who has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress 
disorder, neck injuries resulting from an auto accident, and depression.  In 
2003, the Family Court issued a custody order providing that the parties 
would share joint legal custody of the children and that, because of concerns 
about Mother’s mental health, Father would have primary residential 
custody.  Father resides in Delaware.  Shortly after the Family Court issued 
its custody order, Mother left Delaware and, since then, has resided in 
Florida.     
 
(3) 
By consent order dated May 6, 2004, Mother was permitted 
visitation with the children in Florida according to the following schedule: 
six weeks of summer vacation, Christmas vacation, spring break in odd-
numbered years, and Thanksgiving break in even-numbered years.  The 
record reflects that the girls visited with Mother in Florida only once---in the 
summer of 2004.        
 
3
 
(4) 
Mother maintains that she is unable to travel from Florida to 
participate in any Family Court proceedings in Delaware because of her 
physical problems and because the presence of her former husband 
intensifies her post-traumatic stress disorder.  She has filed numerous 
motions to participate in the Family Court proceedings by telephone.  The 
Family Court has denied all such motions on the ground that it cannot decide 
Mother’s petition for a modification of custody unless it can directly assess 
Mother’s physical capabilities, emotional stability and credibility.   
 
(5) 
The record reflects that, on October 27, 2005, the Family Court 
held a hearing on Mother’s petitions for a rule to show cause, Mother’s 
petitions for a modification of custody, and Father’s petition for a 
modification of visitation.  The record further reflects that, on October 31, 
2005, the Family Court dismissed Mother’s petitions because of her failure 
to appear for the hearing despite being duly notified.  Mother subsequently 
requested that the hearing be re-opened on the ground that air travel in 
Florida had been curtailed due to a hurricane.  Even though there was no 
evidence that Mother had ever purchased an airplane ticket, the Family 
Court nevertheless granted Mother’s request and re-scheduled the hearing 
for April 17, 2006.  Mother’s motion to participate by telephone was denied.   
 
4
 
(6) 
In March 2006, the Family Court issued an order scheduling an 
evidentiary hearing for March 28, 2006 on Mother’s repeated requests to 
participate in the Family Court proceedings by telephone.  The Family Court 
noted that it had reviewed all the medical documentation submitted by 
Mother’s psychiatrist and nursing care manager in support of her requests.  
At the hearing, Mother, her psychiatrist and her nursing care manager were 
permitted to testify by telephone.  The psychiatrist, Dr. Adam Karwatowicz, 
testified that Mother’s stress would be relieved by allowing her to participate 
in the Family Court proceedings by videophone at a site different from her 
former husband.   
 
(7) 
Based upon Dr. Karwatowicz’ testimony, the Family Court 
ordered that Mother could participate in the Family Court’s April 17, 2006 
hearing by videophone, but that she was responsible for the cost of the 
videophone hook-up in Florida and for arranging the hook-up between a site 
in Florida and the Family Court in Delaware.  The Family Court further 
ordered that, if Mother could not make the arrangements for a videophone 
hook-up in Florida, she would have to travel to Sussex County, Delaware, 
and participate by videophone from the Family Court in that location.  The 
record reflects that Mother was duly notified of the Family Court’s order.            
 
5
 
(8) 
After the issuance of the Family Court’s order, the Family 
Court was contacted by the Florida 20th Judicial Circuit Court to arrange for 
the videophone hook-up.  The April 17, 2006 hearing subsequently was re-
scheduled for June 16, 2006 at the request of the Court Appointed Special 
Advocate (“CASA”).  The record reflects that Mother was duly notified of 
the scheduling change.  The Delaware court and the Florida court attempted 
up until the date of the hearing to set up the videophone hook-up.  The 
record reflects that they were not able to do so because the two court 
systems do not have compatible video conferencing protocols.   
 
(9) 
On June 16, 2006, a hearing took place on all of the outstanding 
petitions filed by Mother and Father.  Father was present in the courtroom.  
Mother was in Florida on the speakerphone.  She had made no arrangements 
for any witnesses to testify in her behalf.  At the outset of the hearing, the 
Family Court judge noted the difficulties experienced by the courts in 
attempting to set up a videophone hook-up and asked Mother if she had 
arranged for a videophone hook-up from another site.  Mother stated that she 
had not.  The judge explained to Mother that she would not be permitted to 
testify by telephone regarding the custody issue.  Mother then informed the 
judge that, after consulting with the ACLU and disability law counsel, she 
had been advised not to participate in the hearing.  After Mother stated 
 
6
definitively that she would not participate in the hearing, the Family Court 
responded as follows:  “Okay, ma’am, that is your choice.  If you don’t want 
to participate, then I can disconnect you.”  Mother replied, “Thank you.”  
After disconnecting Mother, the Family Court proceeded to dismiss 
Mother’s petitions and hear evidence on Father’s petition to modify 
visitation.   
 
(10) The evidence presented in support of Father’s petition was as 
follows.  Di Rafter, a CASA caseworker, testified that she had interviewed 
Mother, Father, Betsy and Anna at length.  She reported that the girls miss 
their mother, but are afraid to go to Florida to see her.  The last time they 
visited Mother, Betsy was coached to use a teddy bear to describe how 
Father had abused her and then was videotaped with the teddy bear.  An 
investigation by the Division of Family Services (“DFS”) uncovered no 
abuse by Father.  Betsy was deeply upset by the incident.  The girls told 
Rafter that Mother returns all the gifts they send to her and has failed to 
respond to their e-mails.  Rafter stated that, if the girls were sent to Florida 
for a visit, she is not sure Mother would send them back.   
 
(11) Father testified that he and the girls live with his fiancée, Jill, 
and her infant son, Allen.  They live in a three-story townhouse with a 
finished basement.  The girls share a bedroom.  They go to school in the 
 
7
neighborhood and get excellent grade reports.  Father testified about the 
girls’ visit with Mother in the summer of 2004.  He could hear the stress in 
their voices when he spoke to them on the phone and was fearful that 
Mother would not return them to Delaware.  He testified that he was 
investigated twice by DFS as a result of reports by Mother that Father had 
abused the girls.  No evidence of abuse was ever found.  Father testified that 
the girls get upset when they speak to Mother on the phone and that they do 
not want to go to Florida to visit her.   
 
(12) The Family Court judge interviewed both girls on the record.  
Anna confirmed that the visit with Mother in 2004 had not gone well.  Betsy 
stated that talking to Mother on the phone upsets her and that she was 
particularly upset by Mother’s comments about Father being a bad person.  
Betsy stated that her conversations with Mother “would make me cry for 
about the rest of the night.”  In describing what happened during the visit in 
Florida she said, “It went really badly, because my grandpa, he would sit me 
in front of the teddy bear and he said, ‘Pretend that this is your dad,’ and he 
would make it do things that are very bad and say things that are bad . . . .”     
 
(13) Salome Conley, a week-end investigator with DFS, testified 
that she had investigated the situation with the family.  She had a phone 
conversation with Mother, who asked her where the girls would go if Father 
 
8
were found to have abused them.  Conley told Mother the girls would go to 
her.  Conley also spoke with Betsy, who recounted the upsetting incidents 
that occurred during her visit with Mother in Florida.   
 
(14) Steven Moores, a therapist for Delaware Guidance Services for 
Children, testified that the girls had been brought to him by Father for 
counseling in February of 2006.  He stated that Father made every effort to 
be balanced in his presentation of the situation with Mother.  While Father 
brings the girls to counseling, he does not remain in the room with them 
when they talk to Moores.  Moores’ opinion was that the girls were very 
disturbed by Mother’s comments about Father.  He also stated that Betsy felt 
guilty about being videotaped making false statements about her Father.  It 
was also Moores’ opinion that the girls are doing very well at this time and 
have adjusted well to Jill and her son.  He did not believe that joint 
counseling with Mother and the girls should be attempted at this time 
because of the “very serious damaging effect” Mother has had on them.    
 
(15) Following the hearing, the Family Court issued its order on 
Father’s petition for modification of visitation.  In the order, the Family 
Court found that there was substantial evidence of Mother’s mental 
instability.  The Family Court noted that Mother had repeatedly ignored its 
orders and had repeatedly made false accusations against Father with DFS 
 
9
and the police.  The Family Court stated that it was “alarmed” by Mother’s 
conduct during the girls’ visit with her in the summer of 2004.  On the basis 
of those findings, the Family Court ruled as follows:  “The Court finds that 
physical visitation between the children and their mother would endanger 
the children’s physical health and significantly impair their emotional 
development.  The Court hereby stays all physical contact between mother 
and the children unless it is supervised and occurs in Delaware.  The Court 
finds that telephone contact between mother and the children should 
continue . . . and may be monitored by the father for appropriateness.”    
 
(16) In this appeal, Mother claims that the Family Court’s decision 
to proceed with the hearing in Mother’s absence violated her due process 
rights and that, due to several “procedural infirmities,” the Family Court’s 
decision is not the result of an orderly and logical deductive process.3  The 
alleged “procedural infirmities” are as follows:  a) Mother was not present at 
the hearing; b) the CASA caseworker did not have sufficient time to develop 
the facts surrounding the case; c) the judge had filed a notice of recusal 
regarding matters involving the parties; and d) the venue for the hearing 
should have been changed. 
                                          
 
3 To the extent Mother claims that the Family Court violated the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, that claim was not fully addressed by the Family Court and we, 
therefore, decline to address it in this appeal.  Supr. Ct. R. 8.   
 
10
 
(17) This Court’s review of appeals from the Family Court extends 
to a review of the facts and the law as well as to a review of the inferences 
and deductions made by the judge.4  This Court will not disturb findings of 
fact unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be 
overturned.5  If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, the standard 
of review is abuse of discretion.6  Errors of law are reviewed de novo.7  An 
order concerning visitation may be modified at any time if the best interest 
of the child would be served by such modification.8  In modifying a 
visitation order, the Family Court must specifically state its findings and 
conclusions in support of denying or restricting a parent’s access to a child.9 
 
(18) Mother’s first claim is that her due process rights were violated 
by the Family Court’s decision to proceed with the hearing in her absence.  
The transcript of the hearing clearly reflects that it was Mother’s choice not 
to participate in the hearing.  The Family Court explained, as it had several 
times previously, that its custody determination would require a direct 
assessment of Mother’s physical and mental health, as well as her demeanor 
and credibility.  The record reflects that the Family Court went out of its way 
                                          
 
4 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979) 
5 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983).  
6 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186 (Del. 1991). 
7 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995).  
8 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 728(a). 
9 Id. 
 
11
to assist Mother in presenting live testimony in support of her custody 
petition.  Moreover, Mother was on notice that three of her petitions for a 
rule to show cause, two of her custody petitions, as well as Father’s petition 
to modify visitation, would be considered by the Family Court at the 
hearing.  When Mother made the decision not to participate in the hearing, 
she waived her right to pursue the claims made in those petitions as well as 
her right to testify in opposition to Father’s petition.  We conclude, 
therefore, that Mother’s first claim is without merit.   
 
(19) Mother’s second claim is that the Family Court’s decision is not 
the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.  The record in this 
case, including the transcript of the hearing, reflects that the findings of the 
Family Court were amply supported by the evidence presented at the 
hearing.  There is no suggestion of error or abuse of discretion on the part of 
the Family Court.  Moreover, the Family Court fulfilled its obligation to  
specifically state its findings and conclusions in support of denying or 
restricting Mother’s access to the children.   
 
(20) There is no merit to Mother’s claim of “procedural infirmities” 
in the proceedings.  First, it was Mother’s choice not to participate in the 
hearing.  Second, the record reflects that the CASA caseworker understood 
the facts surrounding the case and was well prepared to testify.  Third, there 
 
12
is no evidence to suggest that the venue of the hearing should have been 
changed.   
 
(21) Mother’s fourth contention is that the judge should not have 
conducted the hearing because she previously had recused herself from 
matters involving the parties.  The Family Court record reflects that the 
judge filed a form recusal notice on March 1, 2005, but, nevertheless, ruled 
on every motion and conducted every hearing involving these parties after 
that.  This Court remanded the matter to the Family Court for an explanation 
of those circumstances.  On remand, the Family Court judge explained that 
the recusal notice had been filed in error due to confusion concerning the 
identity of a former client.  In her supplemental memorandum following 
remand, Mother accepts the judge’s explanation and concedes this issue.10  
We conclude, therefore, that Mother’s second claim also is without merit. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
      
                                          
 
10 Father did not file a supplemental memorandum.