Title: Painter v. Painter
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 124, 2023
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 15, 2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SAMUEL PAINTER,1 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
LOUISE PAINTER, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 124, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below–Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File No. CN14-02909 
§  Petition No. 22-27451 
§                         
§   
§ 
 
Submitted: December 8, 2023 
Decided: 
February 15, 2024 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 
conclude that the Family Court’s March 17, 2023 order dismissing the appellant’s 
petition for a protection from abuse (“PFA”) order should be affirmed.  “Factual 
findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous,” and 
“[w]hen the determination of facts turns on a question of the credibility and the 
acceptance or rejection of the testimony of witnesses appearing before the trier of 
fact, we will not substitute our opinion for that of the trier of fact.”2  During the PFA 
hearing, the appellant and the appellee testified to conflicting versions of the events 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019) (citations omitted). 
 
 
2 
 
that the appellant cited in his PFA petition.  The Family Court credited the appellee’s 
testimony over that of the appellant.  We will not disturb the trier of fact’s credibility 
determinations on appeal.  To the extent that the appellant argues that the Family 
Court judge should be recused from further proceedings involving the parties, the 
appellant must present a motion for recusal to the Family Court in the first instance.3  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
Justice 
 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 8.  See Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381, 384 (Del. 1991) (“To be disqualified the 
alleged bias or prejudice of the judge must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an 
opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from [her] participation in 
the case.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).