Title: Foxwell v. Caldwell
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 501, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: April 1, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DIANA FOXWELL,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
DONALD CALDWELL,
Respondent Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 501, 2001
§
§  Court Below—Family Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Sussex County
§  File No. 47, 254
§  Petition No. 01-21550
§
§
Submitted: March 1, 2002
  Decided:
April 1, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 1st day of April 2002, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the
record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, Diana Foxwell, filed this appeal from an order of the
Family Court, dated September 25, 2001, dismissing her petition for a rule to show
cause against the appellee, Donald Caldwell.  Foxwell alleged in her petition, and
Caldwell admitted, that Caldwell had signed a Certificate of Marriage on behalf of
the parties’ daughter so that she could get married at age 17.  Foxwell asserted that
Caldwell’s actions were in contempt of a prior Family Court order, dated
December 4, 1989, which awarded sole custody of the parties’ daughter to
Foxwell.  Foxwell also requested that her daughter’s marriage be annulled.
2
(2)
The Family Court denied Foxwell’s request to annul her daughter’s
marriage on the ground that Foxwell’s Rule to Show Cause petition against
Caldwell was an inappropriate means to seek annulment of the marriage.
Furthermore, the Family Court noted that the daughter, who appeared before the
Court, had since turned 18 and had confirmed her marriage.  Although the Family
Court found Caldwell in contempt of the prior custody order, the court did not
impose a fine because: (i) Foxwell indicated that she did not want to receive any
money from Caldwell; and (ii) Caldwell’s actions did not cause any harm given the
daughter’s expressed happiness in her marriage.
(3)
We have reviewed the parties’ contentions on appeal carefully.  We
find it manifest that this matter should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the
reasons set forth in, the Family Court’s well-reasoned decision dated September
25, 2001.  There was no error of law or abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s
judgment.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice