Case Summary: Mother a Family Court decision that granted primary residential custody to Father. The Supreme Court first cited the standard of review for Family Court decisions includes a review of the facts and the law. The Court held that in cases where the Family Court's decision will result in a dramatic change in the child's living arrangements, the Court must address each factor of the best interests statute explicitly rather than implicitly. The Supreme Court then reviewed the trial court's findings that there was a close relationship with the children and the Father's new family, the Father had regular working hours, the Mother exhibited rage towards the Father and stepmother and that the potential psychological damage to the children as a result. The Court, on appeal, found that the record was inadequate. There were no psychological evaluations of the children as ordered by the Court and the only expert was retained by Father. The Court found that the Family Court failed to address certain factors in making its conclusions. The Supreme Court then went on to review the actual circumstances of the case. The Court found that Father had left Mother and moved in with stepmother in 1999 (who was previously the children's babysitter) but was not married until 2000. The Court found that this gives way to an inference that the Father was engaged in an adulterous relationship to which his children were exposed. The Supreme Court concluded that this potentially adulterous relationship goes to the "moral character development" of the children and is a relevant consideration in the best interest analysis, regardless of the adulterous parent's subsequent remarriage. The Court cites Elizabeth A.S. v. Anthony M.S., 435 A.2d 721, 724-25 (Del. 1981) for this principal.
The Supreme Court then reviewed the trial court's finding regarding Father's present family. In reviewing the record, the Court found that even the expert testified that third marriages (this was the Father's third marriage) have an 80% divorce rate. The Court stated that this is a relevant factor to be considered by the trial court, especially in light of the fact that "the best predictor of future conduct is past conduct." Lastly, the Court found that the Family Court may not have given due consideration to evidence of domestic violence, given the prior PFA entered against the Father. The Court remanded this case back to Family Court for an entirely new hearing.

Back to Case Law