Title: Walton v. Walton
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 149, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 17, 2003

-1- 
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FRED WALTON,                    
           
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
MARY WALTON, 
     
 
 
     
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 149, 2003 
 
   Court Below – Family Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   File No. CN99-08005 
   Petition Nos. 00-28915;01-11574; 
                         02-06166;02-33389 
 
 
 
Submitted:  October 31, 2003 
   Decided:   December 17, 2003 
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 17th day of December 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Fred Walton (“Father”),1 filed an appeal 
from the Family Court’s January 28, 2003 and February 27, 2003 orders, which 
denied Father’s request that respondent-appellee Mary Walton (“Mother”) be held 
in contempt and denied Father’s request for residential custody of the parties’ two 
minor children.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM.  
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte has assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
 
-2- 
 
(2) 
Mother and Father were divorced on April 20, 2000.  In August 1999, 
they entered into a consent agreement providing for joint legal custody, with 
Mother to have residential custody and Father to have visitation consistent with the 
Family Court’s standard visitation guidelines.  On August 3, 1999, the parties’ 
agreement was entered as an order of the Family Court.  In December 1999, March 
2000, and April 2000, Father filed motions to modify the custody order to provide 
for shared residential custody.   
 
(3) 
In September 2000, Father filed another request for modification of 
the residential custody arrangements alleging that Mother was unwilling to share 
responsibility for raising the children, had improperly involved the children in 
parental communications, and had failed to plan for the children’s health, 
educational and other needs.  On November 1, 2000, following a hearing, the 
Family Court held Mother in contempt of its August 1999 order for failing to 
involve Father in major decisions concerning the children and further ordered 
Mother to pay Father’s attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $262.50.  
 
(4) 
In April 2001, Father filed a petition for a rule to show cause why 
Mother should not be found in contempt of the Family Court’s November 1, 2000 
order.   In February 2002, Father filed another petition for a rule to show cause 
alleging violations of his right to visitation and requesting that he be granted sole 
 
 
-3- 
residential custody of the parties’ minor children.  On July 11, 2001, the Family 
Court held a hearing on Father’s petitions and, on January 28, 2003, issued a letter 
decision and order denying Father’s request for sole residential custody and 
declining to hold Mother in contempt.2  On February 27, 2003, the Family Court 
issued an order denying Father’s request to reconsider its decision concerning 
residential custody.    
 
(5) 
At the July 11, 2001 hearing, the Family Court heard testimony from 
Father’s wife and the day care provider, as well as Mother and Father.  In its 
January 28, 2003 letter decision, the Family Court found that Mother had failed to 
see to the children’s health needs in a couple of instances,3 had failed to 
communicate with Father about decisions concerning the children’s health and 
welfare in a couple of instances,4 and is being treated for depression.  Nevertheless, 
the Family Court also found that the children’s best interests would be served by 
continuing to reside with Mother in a familiar and emotionally supportive 
environment.  Because it is difficult for Mother to attend to the children’s 
                                                 
2 The Family Court did, however, award Father his attorney’s fees and credited him with $265.50 
against monies he owed to Mother. 
 
3 Mother failed to schedule dental appointments for both children and failed to schedule a speech 
evaluation appointment for the younger child. 
 
4 Mother did not tell Father about changing the older child’s school and the children’s day care 
arrangements. 
 
 
 
-4- 
education and medical care in addition to her full-time job, the Family Court 
determined, however, that Father would have final decision-making authority in 
those areas, together with increased visitation.  The Family Court declined to hold 
Mother in contempt, because her lack of compliance with the Family Court’s 
orders appeared to stem from a lack of communication between the parties, 
responsibility for which lies equally with Mother and Father.   
 
(6) 
This Court’s review of appeals from the Family Court extends to 
review of the facts and the law as well as to a review of the inferences and 
deductions made by the judge.5  This Court will not disturb findings of fact unless 
they are clearly wrong and justice requires that they be overturned.6  This Court 
will not substitute its own opinion for the inferences and deductions made by the 
trial judge if they are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and 
logical deductive process.7  We review issues of law de novo.8   
 
(7) 
We have reviewed the trial transcript in detail and find that the 
evidence supports the Family Court’s factual findings.  We, therefore, conclude 
                                                 
5 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
 
6 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
 
7 Id. 
 
8 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d at 1279-80. 
 
 
 
-5- 
that there is no basis for overturning those findings.  Moreover, we find that the 
Family Court appropriately weighed the evidence in light of the proper statutory 
standards.9                                                                                                                                         
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland  
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
9 Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §§ 729(b) and 722(a).