Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner-Appellant Vanessa Wright appealed a Family Court decision that awarded alimony to Respondent-Appellee David Wright as a result of divorce proceedings. On appeal, Wife contended that: (1) the Family Court abused its discretion and violated her rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 1 of the Delaware Constitution by reducing her tithing when calculating her monthly expenses; and (2) the Family Court erred in its analysis under title 13, section 1512(c) of the Delaware Code by reducing the Husband's earning capacity calculation, and thus requiring the Wife to pay more in alimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that both of the Wife's arguments were without merit. View "Wright v. Wright" on Justia Law

Scott and Vanessa Clark married on July 23, 2003 and had two children. After Father and Mother separated, Mother sought sole custody of the children. The trial judge gave joint custody to Mother and Father. Mother advanced three arguments on appeal: (1) joint custody was improper because Father was subject to an order of guardianship, (2) the findings of fact in the best interests of the child analysis were clearly erroneous, and (3) the delayed implementation of the final order constituted error. Although the Supreme Court concluded after its review of the record that this case was "a close abuse of discretion" case, it nevertheless affirmed the trial court, finding Mother did not preserve the issue of guardianship for appeal, and that the evidence on record still supported the trial court's decisions. View "Clark v. Clark" on Justia Law

Scott and Vanessa Clark married on July 23, 2003 and had two children. After Father and Mother separated, Mother sought sole custody of the children. The trial judge gave joint custody to Mother and Father. Mother raised three arguments on appeal of that decision: (1) joint custody is improper because Father was subject to an order of guardianship, (2) the findings of fact in the best interests of the child analysis were clearly erroneous, and (3) the delayed implementation of the final order constituted error. "Although this [was] a close abuse of discretion case," after its review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Clark v. Clark" on Justia Law

Father filed a motion to modify a child custody and visitation agreement in the Family Court in order to travel with his three children to certain countries. The trial judge denied father's motion, holding that contract principles governed the agreement and barred the trial court from modifying unambiguous contract language. On appeal, the father claimed that the trial judge erroneously applied contract principles to a custody and visitation agreement instead of applying the best interest of the child test as required under 13 Del. C. 722. Since the modification requested here should have been reviewed under the best interest of the child test, the court reversed and remanded.

Mother appealed from a final judgment of the Family Court that terminated her parental rights in her now three-year-old child. Mother raised two arguments on appeal: (1) the Family Court erred, by shifting the burden of proof from the DFS to her, at the termination of parental rights hearing; and (2) the Family Court's factual determination that mother failed to plan for the child was clearly erroneous and not sufficiently supported by the record. The court held that the record reflected that the Family Court properly placed the burden of proof on DFS throughout the termination proceedings and mother had failed to show that the Family Court's "failure to plan" determination was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, concluding that mother's arguments were without merit, the court affirmed the judgment.

Wife appealed from a Family Court final judgment in favor of Husband, arising from Husband's Petition to Modify Alimony and the Wife's Motion for Specific Performance and Rule to Show Cause. On appeal, Wife contended that the Family Court erred when it reformed the parties' Marital Property Settlement Agreement to provide that alimony payments would terminate upon the Wife's cohabitation. The court held that the Family Court properly held that the Agreement was unconscionable and subject to reformation where the record supported the Family Court's factual findings of overreaching and unfairness.

Respondent filed an appeal from the Family Court's final judgment regarding attorney's fees; its order dividing the marital property; and its order granting the motion of petitioner to rescind the parties' separation agreement. The court affirmed the Family Court's decision to rescind the separation agreement where that court found the terms of the separation were unfair and that respondent exerted undue influence in getting petitioner to sign it. The court concluded that the Family Court's decision to divide the marital assets 55%/45% in favor of petitioner and dividing the marital debts 45%/55% in petitioner's favor must be affirmed. Finally, the court concluded that the Family Court's decision to award attorney's fees to petitioner must also be affirmed.

Defendant appealed from a Family Court order finding him delinquent of, and sentencing him for, the offenses of Assault in the First Degree, Reckless Endangering in the First Degree, and Offensive Touching. On appeal, defendant challenged two of the Family Court's evidentiary rulings and claimed that there was insufficient evidence to support the court's adjudication of delinquency on all three charges. The court held that there was no plain error and that there was sufficient evidence to support the Family Court's finding of delinquency on all three charges. The court also held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in not excluding the state's rebuttal evidence. The court further held that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request to admit evidence of the victim's two convictions because there was no basis to admit that evidence as probative of defendant's claim of self-defense. Therefore, the judgments of the Family Court were affirmed.

Appellant appealed from Family Court orders granting the Division of Family Services' petitions for the termination of her parental rights in her four minor children. At issue was whether the Family Court erroneously denied her Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss and failed to address the requisite best interest of the child factors when terminating her rights. The court held that, by presenting evidence to support her defense after the Family Court judge denied her Motion to Dismiss, appellant waived her right to contest the dismissal. Even if she stood on her motion, however, the Family Court judge had considerable discretion to deny it and under the facts of the case, the dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. The court also held that the judge considered the best interest of the child factors appropriately and made conclusions after finding facts that were not clearly wrong. Accordingly, the judgment of the Family Court was affirmed.

Appellant appealed from Family Court orders granting Division of Family Services ("DFS") petitions for the termination of her parental rights in her four minor children. At issue was whether the Family Court erroneously denied her Family Court Civil Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss and failed to address the requisite best interest of the child factors when terminating her rights. The court held that, by presenting evidence to support her defense after the Family Court judge denied her motion, appellant waived her right to contest the dismissal. The court also held that even if appellant had stood on her motion, the Family Court had considerable discretion to deny it and therefore, the Family Court did not abuse its discretion. The court further held that the Family Court did consider the best interest of the child factors appropriately and made conclusions after finding facts that were not clearly wrong. Accordingly, the judgment of the Family Court was affirmed.