Title: Hendrix v. Hendrix
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 102, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: January 27, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
M. GERARDINE HENDRIX,  
' 
' 
No.  102, 2004 
Respondent Below- 
 
' 
Appellant,  
 
 
' 
Court Below: Family Court 
' 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
' 
for New Castle County 
' 
 
LESTER E. HENDRIX,  
 
' 
No.  CN03-06382 
' 
Petitioner Below-  
 
' 
Appellees.  
 
 
' 
 
 
Submitted: January 6, 2005 
 
Decided: January 27, 2005 
 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
This 27th day of January 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1)  The respondent-appellant, M. Gerardine Hendrix (AMother@), appeals from 
a decision of the Family Court granting joint and equal custody of her two minor 
children to the petitioner-appellee, Lester E. Hendrix (AFather@).  Mother contends that 
the Family Court considered the best interest factors under 13 Del. C. ' 722(a) in a 
cursory manner and ignored certain aspects of her testimony regarding the children=s 
best interest.  We conclude that the Family Court properly applied the best interest 
factors.  Accordingly, we affirm.   
 
2
(2)  The general background of this case was set forth in this Court=s opinion 
addressing Mother=s direct appeal.1  In that appeal, we ordered the Family Court to 
perform A[a] complete best interest analysis [as] required by 13 Del. C. ' 722(a).@2  
Mother=s instant appeal concerns the Family Court=s custody decision rendered upon 
remand from this Court. 
(3) 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  To the extent the Family Court=s 
judgment  implicates rulings of law, this Court=s review is de novo.6 
(4) The Family Court complied with this Court=s mandate on remand by 
performing a best interest analysis as required by 13 Del. C. ' 722(a).   The present 
record shows that the Family Court properly applied the best interest factors in 
                                                 
1 
Hendrix v. Hendrix, No.102, 2004, 2004 Del. LEXIS 383 (Del. Aug. 30, 2004).   
2 
Id. at *4.    
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) (citing W. v. W., 339 A.2d 726, 
727 (Del. 1975)).   
5 
Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983).   
6 
In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995).   
 
3
determining that joint and equal custody was in the children=s best interest.  The 
Family Court considered each best interest factor and weighed the parties= respective 
evidence pertaining to each factor.  The inferences and deductions made by the Family 
Court were supported by the record and were the product of an orderly and logical 
deductive process.7  Further, the Family Court, as the sole trier of fact in the present 
case, was entitled to give Mother=s testimony as much or as little weight as it found to 
be worthy.8  Thus, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the Family Court.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry DuPont Ridgely 
 
Justice  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7 
Solis, 468 A.2d at 1279.   
8 
Walls v. State, 560 A.2d 1038, 1047 (Del. 1989).   
 
4