Court Opinion

ID: 9365275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 17:02:58.813556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:44.233872
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    ERICA HARRIS,1                           §
                                             §   No. 201, 2022
          Respondent Below,                  §
          Appellant,                         §
                                             §   Court Below–Family Court
          v.                                 §   of the State of Delaware
                                             §
    LAURA CLARKE,                            §
                                             §   File No. CN21-05752
          Petitioner Below,                  §   Petition No. 21-27836
          Appellee.                          §

                               Submitted: December 23, 2022
                               Decided:   January 20, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                            ORDER

         After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears

to the Court that:

         (1)    The respondent below-appellant, Erica Harris (the “Mother”), filed this

appeal from a May 23, 2022 Family Court order granting the petition for third-party

visitation filed by the petitioner below-appellee, Laura Clarke (the “Grandmother”).

Having reviewed the parties’ respective positions, we affirm the Family Court’s

judgment.

1
    The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
       (2)    In November 2021, the Grandmother filed a petition for third-party

visitation with the Mother’s then-nine-year-old son (the “Child”). The Mother

opposed the petition. On May 18, 2022, the Family Court held a hearing on the

petition. Both the Mother and the Grandmother appeared and testified at the hearing.

In its May 23, 2022 order granting the Grandmother’s petition, the Family Court

found that the Grandmother had demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence,

that the Mother’s objections to the petition were unreasonable; that visitation was in

the Child’s best interest; and that the Grandmother had demonstrated, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that visitation would not interfere with the Child’s

relationship with the Mother. The Family Court ordered that the Grandmother have

one three-hour dinner visit with the Child every other week. The Mother appeals.2

       (3)    This Court’s review a Family Court decision includes a review of both

the law and the facts.3 We review conclusions of law de novo.4 Findings of fact will

not be disturbed on appeal unless they are determined to be clearly erroneous.5 We

will not substitute our opinion for the inferences and deductions of the trial judge if

they are supported by the record.6 Finally, “[w]hen the determination of facts turns

2
  The Child’s father, who was notified of the Family Court proceedings by publication, did not
participate in the proceedings below and has not filed an appeal.
3
  Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006).
4
  Id.
5
  Id.
6
  Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979).
                                              2
on a question of credibility and the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of

witnesses appearing before [the Family Court], those findings of the [court] will be

approved upon review, and we will not substitute our opinion for that of the trier of

fact.”7

          (4)   When reviewing the Grandmother’s petition for visitation, the Family

Court was statutorily required to consider whether: (i) visitation with the

Grandmother was in the Child’s best interest;8 (ii) the Grandmother had

demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Mother’s objections to

visitation were unreasonable;9 and (iii) the Grandmother had demonstrated, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that visitation would not substantially interfere with

the parent/child relationship.10

          (5)   On appeal, the Mother argues that the Grandmother abused her

mentally, physically, and emotionally as a child and has attempted to “turn” the

Child against her. Our review of the Mother’s claims is limited because the Mother

did not provide the Court with a copy of the transcript of the Family Court

7
  Id.
8
  13 Del. C. § 2412(a)(1).
9
  13 Del. C. § 2412(a)(2)(d).
10
   Id.
                                           3
proceedings.11 In any event, it is clear from the Family Court’s order that it

considered the Mother’s allegations of abuse and manipulation and concluded that

they “appear to be based upon ordinary and minor issues.”12 We will not set aside

the trial court’s credibility determination.

       (6)     Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions and the record on

appeal, we conclude that the Family Court’s order should be affirmed. The Family

Court correctly applied the law to the facts and did not abuse its discretion in granting

the Grandmother’s petition for visitation.

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

Court is AFFIRMED.

                                               BY THE COURT:

                                               /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
                                                    Chief Justice

11
   Supreme Court Rule 14 provides that the appellant is required to provide the Court with “such
portions of the trial transcript as are necessary to give this Court a fair and accurate account of the
context in which the claim of error occurred [as well as] a transcript of all evidence relevant to the
challenged finding or conclusion.” Del. Supr. Ct. R. 14(e).
12
   The Family Court’s May 23, 2022 order, at 3.
                                                  4