Court Opinion

ID: 9781038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:04:42.254197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:34.632017
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SAMANTHA MAY MURPHY,1                               §
                                                    §   No. 8, 2023
         Respondent Below, Appellant,               §
                                                    §   Court Below - Family Court
         v.                                         §   of the State of Delaware
                                                    §
DYLAN MURPHY,                                       §   File No. CS22-04421
                                                    §   Petition No. 22-05889
         Petitioner Below, Appellee,                §
                                                    §
         and                                        §
                                                    §
DONALD W. KRAVITZ and DAWN J.                       §   File No. CS22-04760
KRAVITZ,                                            §   Petition No. 22-11838
                                                    §
         Petitioners Below, Appellees.              §

                                Submitted: July 21, 2023
                                Decided: August 29, 2023

Before TRAYNOR, LeGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

                                            ORDER

         After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family

Court’s order dated January 4, 2023. The Family Court appropriately considered the

best-interest factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722 in light of the evidence presented

and acted within its broad discretion when deciding the custody and residential

1
    The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
arrangements for the children.2 “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.”3 As to the appellant’s contention that the Family Court

erroneously prevented her from presenting evidence, the record reflects that the

Family Court gave the appellant significant latitude in presenting her case,4 and we

discern no abuse of discretion in the Family Court’s evidentiary rulings.5

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

                                                     BY THE COURT:

                                                     /s/ Abigail M. LeGrow
                                                     Justice

2
  See Russell v. Stevens, 2007 WL 3215667, at *2 (Del. Nov. 1, 2007) (affirming Family Court’s
award of primary residential placement and stating that when the Family Court appropriately
considers and weighs each of the best interest factors, the “law vests wide discretion in the trial
court to determine where custody shall be placed”).
3
  Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).
4
  See generally Damiani v. Gill, 2015 WL 4351507, at *1 (Del. July 14, 2015) (observing that self-
represented litigants “are afforded some leniency in presenting their cases”).
5
  See Swanson v. Davis, 2013 WL 3155827, at *4 (Del. June 20, 2013) (stating that the standard
of review for a trial court’s evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion).
                                                2