Title: Hill v. Hill
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 696, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: June 14, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KELLY HILL,1 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
RICHARD HILL,  
 
          Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 696, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK02-04432 
§  Petition No. 09-33691 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
                                         Submitted: May 13, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: June 14, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 14th day of June 2011, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The respondent-appellant, Kelly Hill (“Mother”), filed an 
appeal from the Family Court’s October 4, 2010 order granting the petition 
of the petitioner-appellee, Richard Hill (“Father”), for modification of 
custody with respect to the parties’ minor child, Tonya Hill.2  We find no 
merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated November 3, 
2010.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 We also hereby assign a pseudonym to the parties’ minor child. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Mother and Father are the biological 
parents of Tonya, who was born on September 11, 1999.  Since the parties’ 
divorce in June 2003, Tonya has lived primarily with Mother, with Father 
exercising visitation, as agreed by the parties in a consent order entered by 
the Family Court on March 3, 2004.  On October 12, 2009, Father filed a 
petition for modification of custody of Tonya.  A hearing took place on July 
6, 2010.  Father, Mother, Tonya’s stepmother and Tonya’s stepgrandparents 
testified.  Father was represented by counsel and Mother appeared pro se.  
The Family Court also conducted an in camera interview with Tonya.   
 
(3) 
The hearing was continued pending the appointment of an 
attorney guardian ad litem to represent Tonya’s interests.  The continued 
hearing took place on October 4, 2010.  Again, Father was represented by 
counsel and Mother appeared pro se.  Mother and Father testified, as did 
Lynn Jones, Esquire, the attorney guardian ad litem, and Gracie Morris, a 
witness for Mother.  In addition to its written order dated October 4, 2010, 
the Family Court provided key portions of the rationale underlying its 
decision from the bench following the hearing.          
 
(4) 
The transcript of the hearing reflects the following.  Father and 
his wife, Tonya’s stepmother (“Stepmother”), live in an apartment over the 
garage of her parents’ house.  The house is on DuPont Parkway in Smyrna, 
 
3
Delaware, and sits on approximately 5 acres.  Tonya has her own bedroom 
when she stays there.  Stepmother works at a daycare.  Father has worked at 
Metal Masters for the past 6 years.  Father and Stepmother became aware 
through correspondence with Tonya’s grade school principal that Tonya 
missed several weeks of school during 2008-2009.  They are concerned 
about Tonya’s ill-fitting clothing and lack of personal hygiene when she 
comes to visit them and the fact that she is often left in the care of her 85 
year-old grandmother, who is in ill health.  They also are concerned about 
Tonya’s exposure to Mother’s boyfriend, who has a criminal record.  Tonya 
has a good relationship with Father and Stepmother, but sometimes is 
moody.  She has a good relationship with Stepmother’s parents.  There have 
been no incidents of domestic violence between Father and Stepmother.    
 
(5) 
Mother lives in a double-wide trailer in Magnolia, Delaware.  
She has lived there for the past year.  Mother has lived in several different 
locations with Tonya over the past several years due to her unstable financial 
status.  She also was living with a boyfriend, but moved out when he abused 
her.  Mother now owns her own business called “K&J Keepsakes,” which 
she operates out of her trailer.  Mother is concerned that Father is more 
concerned with his own activities, such as softball and hunting, than he is 
with Tonya.  Mother states that she has a close emotional relationship with 
 
4
Tonya, which Father would be unable to replicate should he be granted 
custody.  Mother admits that Tonya’s grandmother has been ill, but stated 
that Tonya can telephone her aunt, who lives a couple of blocks away, if 
there is any trouble.  Mother was charged with truancy due to Tonya’s 
absences from school.  She stated that Tonya’s absences were due to a 
bacterial infection, severe headaches and emotional issues.  She has not 
sought counseling for Tonya.  Mother’s boyfriend lives down the street from 
her and can easily walk to her residence. 
 
(6) 
The transcript of the Family Court’s interview with Tonya 
reflects the following.  Tonya stated that she is in the fifth grade and wants 
to be a kindergarten teacher when she grows up.  Her favorite classes are 
math and science.  She has a lot of friends at school.  She lives with her 
mother and her mother’s boyfriend.  She has a good relationship with the 
boyfriend and they tease each other a lot.  Tonya stated that she loves 
visiting her father and that, while she and her stepmother did not originally 
get along, things have gotten much better.  She stated that she wants more 
time to spend with her father so that they can build a relationship.  She also 
loves her stepmother’s parents.  Tonya stated that she loves her mother and 
father “the same” and is reluctant to express a preference for one over the 
other.                  
 
5
 
(7) 
At the continued hearing, the attorney guardian ad litem, Lynn 
Jones, Esquire, testified concerning her investigation.  She stated that Tonya 
is a bright child whose grades are now A’s and B’s and who tests well.  She 
has her own bedroom in Mother’s trailer.  On the negative side, Mother’s 
boyfriend was arrested for domestic violence and is now under a no-contact 
order.  Tonya was not present at the time of the incident.  Tonya told Jones 
that she wants to stay with Mother.  Jones also testified that Tonya has her 
own room in Father’s apartment.  Father is current on his child support and 
visitation with Tonya is going well.  The living situation with Father is more 
stable than it is with Mother.   
 
(8) 
There also was testimony at the continued hearing concerning 
an incident that had occurred since the first hearing.  At around 8:00 one 
evening, Father dropped Tonya off, at Mother’s request, at Mother’s friend’s 
house.  Although Father conceded that it was in a “bad neighborhood,” he, 
nevertheless, did not escort Tonya to the door before leaving in his car.  
Tonya ended up at the right house, but not before she had knocked on the 
wrong door and somehow managed to find her way to the right one.      
 
(9) 
Before the close of the continued hearing, the Family Court had 
a criminal background check done on Mother’s boyfriend.  According to the 
Family Court, the boyfriend has convictions of Aggravated Menacing, 
 
6
Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, 
Conspiracy, Shoplifting and a number of traffic violations.  His latest arrest 
was for offensive touching on July 30, 2010 for which he was ordered to 
have no contact with Mother or her residence.  In its ruling from the bench, 
as reflected in its October 4, 2010 order, the Family Court weighed the best 
interest factors of Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §722 and determined that joint 
legal custody of Tonya would remain with both parents, but that Tonya’s 
primary place of residence would be with Father.  The Family Court 
pointedly chastised Father for irresponsibly dropping Tonya off in an 
unfamiliar neighborhood before determining that she was at the correct 
house and Mother for permitting Tonya to continue to have contact with her 
boyfriend even after issuance of the no-contact order prohibiting contact 
between him and Mother.  The Family Court granted Mother visitation, but 
prohibited any contact between Tonya and Mother’s boyfriend. 
 
(10) In this appeal from the Family Court’s order, Mother claims 
that a) she can provide a better environment for Tonya than Father; b) Father 
has tried to interfere with her relationship with Tonya; and c) her boyfriend, 
by whom she is now pregnant, is a positive influence on Tonya.   
 
7
 
(11) To the extent that issues on appeal from a custody order of the 
Family Court implicate rulings of law, we review them de novo.3  To the 
extent that such issues implicate findings of fact, we conduct a limited 
review of the Family Court’s factual findings to assure that they are 
sufficiently supported by the record and are not clearly wrong.4  We will not 
disturb inferences and deductions made by the Family Court that are 
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical 
deductive process.5  If the Family Court correctly applied the law, our 
review is limited to abuse of discretion.6 
 
(12) Under Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §729(b), an order entered by the 
Family Court by consent of the parties may be modified at any time in 
accordance with the standards set forth in §722(a) concerning the best 
interests of the child.  Under that subsection, determination of a child’s best 
interests must include consideration of 1) the wishes of the child’s parents; 
2) the wishes of the child; 3) the interaction and interrelationship of the child 
with relatives and other members of the household; 4) the child’s adjustment 
to home, school and community; 5) the mental and physical health of all 
individuals involved; 6) compliance of the parents with their responsibilities 
                                                 
3 Stewart v. DSCYF, 991 A.2d 750, 755 (Del. 2010). 
4 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 
5 Id. 
6 Id. 
 
8
to their child; 7) evidence of domestic violence; and 8) the criminal history 
of any party or resident of the child’s household. 
 
(13) We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, including 
the transcript of both days of the custody hearing as well as the Family 
Court’s interview with Tonya.  We are satisfied that the factual findings 
contained in the Family Court’s October 4, 2010 custody order are fully 
supported by the record.  Moreover, we conclude that the Family Court 
properly weighed the best interests factors of §§722(a) and committed no 
legal error or abuse of discretion.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice