Title: Davis-Thompson v. Brent
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 647, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 11, 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JANET DAVIS-THOMPSON,1 
 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STANLEY BRENT, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 647, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN11-02650 
§  Pet. Nos. 11-38552, 12-18321 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 10, 2013 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 11, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 11th day of June 2013, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Janet Davis-Thompson (the “Mother”), filed this 
appeal from a Family Court decision awarding sole custody of the parties’ 
child to the appellee, Stanley Brent (the “Father”).  We find no error or 
abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s decision.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
(2) 
The Mother and the Father are the parents of one daughter who 
was born on June 2, 2010.  On December 12, 2011, the Father filed a 
petition for custody, alleging that the Mother did not allow him to see his 
                                                 
1 The Court assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
2
daughter and that the Mother lied about where she was living.  After 
mediation was unsuccessful, the Family Court entered an interim custody 
order on May 7, 2012 giving the parties joint custody but maintaining the 
child’s primary residence with the Mother and awarding substantial 
visitation to the Father, including two overnight visits per week.  
(3) 
On May 25, 2012, the Father filed a petition for a rule to show 
cause alleging that the Mother was in contempt of the interim custody order 
because she had refused to allow the Father to visit his daughter.  The Father 
also alleged that the Mother had been notified to vacate her residence, and 
the Father did not know where the Mother would be moving with the child.  
On October 16, 2012, the Family Court held a hearing on the petition for 
custody and the petition for a rule to show cause.  The Father appeared with 
counsel and, in addition to his own testimony, presented the testimony of 
three witnesses: a family friend, a co-worker, and a child care provider.  The 
Mother appeared on her own behalf but presented no witnesses.  After 
considering all of the evidence, the Family Court concluded that the nature 
of the parties’ relationship with each other was such that joint decision-
making was not possible.  Accordingly, the Family Court determined that it 
was in the child’s best interest to award sole custody to the Father while 
granting Mother visitation with the child.  Mother appeals that ruling. 
 
3
(4) 
The Mother’s opening brief on appeal is a two-page document 
disputing the credibility of the Father’s testimony that the Mother refused 
him visitation and that the Mother was abusing the child.  In fact, the Mother 
asserts that a New Castle County Police Officer testified at the hearing and 
stated that there was no evidence that the Mother ever harmed the child.  
There is no evidence of such testimony mentioned in the Family Court’s 
opinion, however, and the Mother has failed to provide a transcript of the 
Family Court hearing to support this claim.  Accordingly, we find no 
sufficient basis to review the Mother’s claim that the Family Court failed to 
consider this alleged testimony.2 
(5) 
The scope of this Court’s review of a Family Court judgment 
includes a review of both law and facts.3  If the Family Court correctly 
applied the law, we review under an abuse of discretion standard.4  The 
Family Court’s factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal if they are 
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical 
deductive process.5  When the determination of facts turns on the credibility 
                                                 
2 Burton v. Burton, 2005 WL 1950214 (Del. July 19, 2005). 
3 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
4 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186-87 (Del. 1991). 
5 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
 
4
of the witnesses who testified under oath before the trial judge, this Court 
will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial judge.6 
(6) 
The record in this case reflects that the Family Court reviewed 
all of the factors relevant to performing a best interest analysis under 13 Del. 
C. § 722(a) and included substantial citation to evidence in the record 
bearing on each factor.  After considering the relevant evidence and 
analyzing the section 722(a) factors, the Family Court concluded that the 
Father’s testimony was more credible and that it was in the child’s best 
interest to be placed in the Father’s sole custody.  Despite needing to travel 
for work, the Father established that he had a stable support system in place 
and was able to provide a loving home environment for the child.  The 
Family Court was concerned that the Mother had changed her residence 
three different times over a six month period, reflecting a lack of stability, 
and was also concerned over testimony reflecting that the child was not 
being properly cared for by the Mother.  The Family Court also accepted the 
Father’s testimony that the Mother had attempted on prior occasions to 
interfere with his custodial rights.  The Family Court found that the Mother’s 
testimony was not “always sincere and truthful.” 
                                                 
6 Wife (J.F.V) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d at 1204. 
 
5
(7) 
Under the circumstances, we find that the Family Court 
correctly applied the law.  Moreover, the trial judge’s factual findings are 
supported by the record and were the product of an orderly and logical 
deductive process.  We find no abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s 
conclusion that granting the Father sole custody was in the child’s best 
interests. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice