Title: Kraft v. Mason
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 410, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 20, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD M. KRAFT,1  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JOANNE MASON,  
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 410, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN09-06352 
§  Petition No. 09-41496 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 12, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 20, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 20th day of December 2010, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Ronald M. Kraft (“Father”), filed an 
appeal from the Family Court’s June 25, 2010 order affirming the January 
15, 2010 order of the Family Court Commissioner, which granted the 
petition for an order of protection from abuse (“PFA”) filed by the 
respondent-appellee, Joanne Mason (“Mother”), on behalf of herself and the 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated July 30, 2010.  
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).  In this Order, we also assign a pseudonym to the parties’ minor son. 
 
2
parties’ three year-old son, Seth.2  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects the following.  On January 15, 
2010, the parties appeared before the Commissioner for a hearing on 
Mother’s PFA petition.3  Mother testified concerning three alleged incidents 
of abuse of Seth by Father.  Mother alleged that, on one occasion, Father 
took Seth with him to work in his tractor-trailer and left Seth alone in the 
vehicle while he completed paperwork for his employer.  Mother also 
alleged that Father physically abused Seth on two other occasions---once in 
November 2009 and once in December 2009.  On the first occasion, 
according to Mother, Father slapped Seth on the face twice and on the 
buttocks once, and pinched him on the arms and one of his legs, causing him 
to cry.  On the second occasion, Father slapped Seth hard on the side of his 
face.  Mother brought a photograph of Seth taken after the incident that 
showed swelling around Seth’s left eye.       
 
(3) 
Mother also testified that Father had abused her physically and 
emotionally on several occasions between June and November 2009.  In 
June, Father took all the family photographs off the wall and took them 
                                                 
2 Father did not seek review of the Commissioner’s denial of his PFA petition or those 
portions of the Commissioner’s order dealing with child support or visitation. 
3 The Commissioner had issued an emergency ex parte order on January 8, 2010 
requiring, among other things, that Father stay 100 yards away from Mother and Seth. 
 
3
apart, telling Mother he did not want to see her in the photographs.  In July, 
Father cut holes in Mother’s favorite nightgown and told her he did not want 
her to put the nightgown on for another man.  In September, Father 
attempted to push Mother, who was pregnant at the time, out of their bed.  
Father then spent the rest of the night sending texts and talking to another 
woman on the phone.  In December 2009, Father woke Mother up and asked 
her to move her car so that he could move his vehicle out of the driveway.  
After moving her car and waiting several minutes in the snow for Father to 
move his vehicle out of the driveway, Mother went back inside and found 
Father asleep.  Father denied Mother’s claims, but the Family Court found 
his denials “questionable.”  Father did not deny that he had slapped Seth, but 
stated that it had been done playfully.   
 
(4) 
In its June 25, 2010 order, the Family Court agreed with the 
Commissioner that the matter turned on the relative credibility of the parties.  
The Family Court deferred to the findings of the Commissioner, who found 
Mother to be more credible than Father.  The Family Court noted that the 
Commissioner was particularly concerned about the allegations of abuse 
against the minor child and characterized those allegations as “a situation 
waiting to happen.”  Ultimately, the Commissioner concluded that there was 
a pattern of behavior on the part of Father warranting a finding of abuse.  
 
4
Based upon an independent review of the record, the Family Court agreed 
with the findings of the Commissioner and affirmed the Commissioner’s 
order.   
 
(5) 
In this appeal, Father claims that the Family Court erred and 
abused its discretion when it affirmed the order of the Family Court 
Commissioner granting Mother’s PFA petition. 
 
(6) 
A party may seek review of a Family Court Commissioner’s 
order pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §915(d)(1), which provides that, “a 
judge of the [Family] Court shall make a de novo determination of those 
portions of the Commissioner’s order to which objection is made.  A judge 
of the [Family] Court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the 
order of the Commissioner.”  A petitioner who seeks protection from abuse 
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that domestic violence has 
occurred.4  “Domestic violence” is defined as “abuse perpetrated by one 
member against another member” of a protected class of persons, such as 
“persons cohabiting together who are holding themselves out as a couple, 
with or without a child in common.”5  “Abuse,” in turn, is defined as, among 
other things, “[i]ntentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause 
                                                 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §1044(b). 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §1041(2)b.  
 
5
physical injury” or “engaging in a course of alarming or distressing conduct 
in a manner which is likely to cause fear or emotional distress.”6 
 
(7) 
This Court’s standard of review of a decision of the Family 
Court, including the Family Court’s review of a Commissioner’s order, 
extends to a review of the facts and the law, as well as to inferences and 
deductions made by the trier of fact.7  We have the duty to review the 
sufficiency of the evidence and test the propriety of the findings.8  Findings 
of fact will not be overturned on appeal unless they are found to be clearly 
erroneous.9   
 
(8) 
We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, including 
the transcript of the hearing before the Commissioner and conclude that the 
Family Court neither erred nor abused its discretion when it affirmed the 
Commissioner’s PFA order.  The Family Court properly concluded that the 
findings of the Commissioner were supported by the facts of record and that 
the issuance of the PFA order was warranted.  As such, the Family Court’s 
judgment must be affirmed. 
 
 
                                                 
6 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 1041(1) a. and d. 
7 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
8 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
9 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
 
6
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice