Opinion
File No. CN10-05898 CPI No(s) 15-39427
06-05-2017
M------ -- D---- - ---- --- ----- ----------- -- ----- Petitioner v. K---- -- D---- ---- ---- ---- ----------- -- ----- Respondent
Petitioner Attorney Jennifer Harnett, Esquire Respondent Attorney Andrew Gonser, Esquire
Nature of Proceeding
Petition to Modify Custody Petitioner Attorney
Jennifer Harnett , Esquire Respondent Attorney
Andrew Gonser , Esquire Date Mailed: 6/5/17
Date Emailed: 6/5/17 FINAL ORDER - PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY
Before the HONORABLE JANELL S. OSTROSKI, Judge of the Family Court of the State of Delaware, is the Petition to Modify Custody filed on December 23, 2015, by M------ -- D---- (herein "Father"), represented by Jennifer Hartnett, Esquire, against K---- -- D---- (herein "Mother"), represented by Shauna Hagan, Esquire., and Andrew Gonser, Esquire in the interest of A----- D----, born ------ -, ----, and O--- D----, born ----- -, ----, (herein "minor children").
Shauna Hagan, Esquire represented Mother over the course of several initial hearing dates after which an Interim Order was entered. Between the date when the Interim Order was entered and the Review Hearing was held, Ms. Hagan withdrew from representing Mother and Andrew Gonser, Esquire entered his appearance and represented Mother at the Review Hearing.
BACKGROUND
The parties were married on June 13, 1999, and divorced on May 20, 2011. The parties have been through extensive litigation having accumulated more than three hundred and seventy-four (374) tabs in their Court file over the past six (6) years. There have been multiple Custody Orders entered in this case. Prior to the instant Petition, the most recent Custody Order was entered on July 25, 2013, by Judge Conner. According to the parties, the children's primary residence is with Mother and the current visitation schedule with Father is every Wednesday night until Thursday morning and every other week from Thursday night until Monday morning.
Judge Conner retired in June, 2016, and this case was assigned to this judicial officer in September, 2016.
In October, 2015, there was an incident between A----- and Father. O--- temporarily stopped visiting Father but has since resumed the aforesaid schedule. Without formally modifying the visitation Order, prior to an Interim Order being entered in this Petition, A----- had not visited with Father since October 19, 2015, except for three (3) counseling sessions. Father filed the instant Petition on December 23, 2015.
LEGAL PROCEDURE AND STANDARD
To determine custody, residential placement, and visitation, the Court must analyze the factors under 13 Del. C. § 722 to create an Order in the children's best interests. And, the Court shall award both parents frequent and meaningful visitation "unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that contact of the child with 1 parent would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development."
13 Del. C. § 722 provides:
(a)The Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, the Court shall consider all of the relevant factors including:
(1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
(2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian or custodians and residential arrangements;
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(4) The child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community;
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title;
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
(8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.
(b)The Court shall not presume that a parent, because of his or her sex, is better qualified than the other parent to act as a joint or sole legal custodian for a child or as the child's primary residential parent, nor shall it consider conduct of a proposed sole or joint custodian or primary residential parent that does not affect his or her relationship with the child.
The Court held a hearing over the course of several days: September 22, 2016; September 27, 2016; October 12, 2016; October 14, 2016; and October 17, 2016. The Court entered an Oral Order on October 24, 2016, and a written Order on November 16, 2016. Pursuant to the Oral Order, the parties were ordered to participate in the Turning Points 4 Families Program where Father and children would attend a therapeutic vacation in New York, Mother would not have contact with the children during a sequestration period, and all parties would follow the recommendations of the program and follow up treatment. The parties subsequently signed a Stipulated Order which set forth what was expected of each parent for the program to succeed. Father was given sole custody and primary residence. The Court hoped that Mother would cooperate with the therapeutic program and resume contact with the children in at least, if not less than, ninety (90) days following the children's therapeutic vacation with Father in New York with L---- G-------, LCSW. A Review Hearing pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 727(b)(1) was scheduled for March 21, 2017, at which time the Court expected the parties to demonstrate to the Court that they had complied with the Court's Order regarding the therapeutic vacation and subsequent treatment and that they were prepared to co-parent the children.
13 Del. C. § 727(b)(1) provides:
(b) Any custody order entered by the Court may include the following provisions:
(1) Granting temporary joint or sole custody for a period of time not to exceed 6 months in duration to give the parents the opportunity of demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Court their ability and willingness to cooperate with the custodial arrangement ordered. Following a timely review of this temporary order by the Court either at the end of this temporary period or sooner upon the application of any party to the proceeding, the Court shall have the authority to continue or modify the temporary order on a permanent basis.
Initially, the Court had planned that the children would remain in their schools in Mother's school district with Father being responsible for the transportation. Mother was ordered to instruct the schools to cooperate with the Court's Interim Order of November 16, 2016. However, Father filed a Motion to Change Schools on November 14, 2016, and the Motion was granted on November 16, 2016, after the Court learned that the schools were not willing to not intervene with the children and the program. The children then attended school from Father's district.
The best interest analysis was set forth in the Court's Interim Order. Said Order is incorporated herein and made a part hereof. This Order supplements the Interim Order with additional evidence received at the Review Hearing and reviews the parties' progress regarding compliance with the Court's Order of October 24, 2016, and the parties' ability to co-parent.
Since the Interim Order was entered, Mother has filed a Motion to Vacate the Order Changing the Children's Schools and a Motion to Modify the Court's Interim Order. By agreement of the parties, both Motions were deferred and consolidated with the Review Hearing on March 21, 2017.
At the Review Hearing, the Court heard testimony from the parties; L---- G-------, LCSW; R----- B----------, Psy.D; D---- T------, PhD; A-- D---, Mother's friend; and Dr. W------ N------, Mother's therapist.
DISCUSSION
In determining the custody and residential placement of a child, the Court must consider the best interests factors of 13 Del. C. § 722.
13 Del. C. § 722 provides:
(a)The Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, the Court shall consider all of the relevant factors including:
(1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
(2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian or custodians and residential arrangements;
(3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(4) The child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community;
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title;
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
(8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.
(b)The Court shall not presume that a parent, because of his or her sex, is better qualified than the other parent to act as a joint or sole legal custodian for a child or as the child's primary residential parent, nor shall it consider conduct of a proposed sole or joint custodian or primary residential parent that does not affect his or her relationship with the child.
1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
Mother's position has not changed since the entry of the Interim Order. She wants the prior custodial, residential, and visitation arrangements to remain in place; the parties having joint custody and Mother have primary residence with Father visiting six (6) out of fourteen (14) overnights every two (2) weeks.
Father's position has changed. Father initially wanted the Court to order joint custody and shared residence once the therapeutic vacation was completed and he had reconnected with the children. He now alleges Mother has not complied with the Court's Interim Order and, therefore, he believes that the Interim Order should now be made the final Order giving him sole custody and primary residence with Mother having contact only through a therapeutic setting and as recommended by the counselors hoping Mother would cooperate and resume contact with the children soon. Father acknowledges that the children need a healthy relationship with their Mother but he does not believe they have a healthy relationship with Mother at this time.
The Court finds this factor is neutral.
2. The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian or custodians and residential arrangements;
The minor children were interviewed separately prior to issuing the Interim Order and the Court's analysis of the interviews was set out in the Interim Order. The Court did not interview the children again after the Review hearing. However, the Court heard from Ms. G------- that the therapeutic vacation went better than expected and the boys quickly resumed a positive relationship with Father. The Court also heard from Dr. B---------- who indicated that the children are doing well working on their relationship with their Father. In the Interim Order, the Court found this factor to be neutral. The Court continues to finds this factor neutral. While the Court believes the children are doing well in Father's home, the Court understands that the children miss their Mother and want to see her.
For the of reasons more fully set forth herein and because of the lack of contact the children have had with their Mother since the entry of the Interim Order, the Court cannot assess the children's wishes at this time.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents , grandparents , siblings , persons cohabitating in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child , any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
Ms. G------- testified that the therapeutic vacation succeeded and went extremely well. The children have been reunited with their Father. Father's wife and two (2) step-children also participated in the therapeutic vacation and the children have reconnected with them as well. Ms. G------- reported that the children quickly reconnected with Father during the first day of the program.
As described by Ms. G-------, the first day of the program acts as an ice breaker for the family. Ms. G------- stated that the first day is an important step in the program because the children have misconceptions about the alienated parent not caring for them. Together, the children, Father, Father's wife, and Father's two-step children looked at old pictures and videos of memories they shared. The pictures and videos spoke for themselves without Father having to tell the children that they were wrong about his feelings for them. And to create new memories, they all went to lunch and participated in rock climbing. Ms. G------- reported that she is on stand-by for phone calls to address concerns or problems the family may have during the first twenty-four (24) hours. However, she received no phone calls in this case.
On the second day of the program, Ms. G------- addressed the child's misconceptions because she believes that if they are not corrected at this stage, the children will believe the misconceptions for the rest of their lives. For example, A----- stated that Mother told him he could choose whether he wanted to visit with Father. A-----'s statement was met with O---'s questioning that if A----- had a choice to visit, why didn't he have a choice. The family spent the day working through similar misconceptions.
Ms. G------- reported that she was pleased with the family's progress in the follow up treatment and that Ms. G------- has been providing updates to Mother. According to Dr. B----------, the local reintegration therapist, since attending the therapeutic vacation, Father and the children have continued to make significant progress in their counseling sessions. Dr. B---------- reported that the children are doing great in their new schools, have reconnected with old friends, have made new friends, and are participating in extracurricular activities. A----- is participating in wrestling and O--- has participated in football at school. O--- is sometimes confused why he cannot see Mother, but he is also angry with her. However, he does love her. A----- has progressed from being closed off and not understanding why they had to participate in the program to having a brighter mood.
What is disappointing to the Court is that Mother has not been reintegrated into the children's lives. Based on the Turning Points 4 Families program, Father, his family, and the children participated in a four (4) - five (5) day therapeutic vacation in New York with L---- G-------. The children then returned to Delaware where there was a sequestration period for up to ninety (90) days with the children living with Father and participating in counseling with a local therapist. Mother was given tasks to complete before, during, and after Father and the children were in New York. The program's requirements were set forth in the Stipulated Order which provided that after Mother completed certain tasks she would be reintegrated into the children's lives beginning in a therapeutic setting. Mother was required to write letters to the children indicating that she supported this process and supported the children having a relationship with their Father. She was also required to read articles on Turning Points 4 Families' website and summarize the articles. Finally, Mother was to participate in individual therapy with a therapist approved by Ms. G-------.
As of the Review Hearing, Mother had completed none of the tasks. On November 4, 2016, she wrote letters to the children. Ms. G------- reviewed the letters and provided feedback to Mother indicating what parts of the letters needed to be changed. Ms. G------- advised Mother that the Court Order was clear and that Mother was to state that it was imperative that each child have a meaningful relationship with Father. And based upon the letters Mother had written, Ms. G------- did not feel that Mother was expressing such message to the children. Ms. G------- felt there was a subliminal message of Mother not supporting the children having a relationship with Father.
Mother did not re-write the letters until after the children were in New York in the therapeutic vacation on November 11, 2016. Ms. G------- again provided feedback to Mother and again advised her changes needed to be made to the letters. As A----- had mentioned that Mother provided him the choice of visiting with Father, Ms. G------- wanted Mother to add to the letters that Mother did not give the children a choice to visit with Father. Mother revised her letter to A-----, but not to O---, and wrote "I am sorry if you interrupted time away from your Father as your choice." Ms. G------- did not approve this letter again because Mother had still not accepted responsibility for her role in the breakdown of the children's relationship with Father. She was instead placing the burden on A-----. As of the Review Hearing, Mother had not changed the letters and the letters had yet to be given to the children.
Ms. G------- believes this word is supposed to be interpreted.
As of the Review Hearing, Mother had not given Ms. G------- or Dr. B---------- summaries of the articles on the website. Initially, the Court was under the impression from Ms. G------- and Dr. B---------- that Mother never even wrote the summaries. Dr. B---------- stated that Mother told her that she did not complete the case summaries because they contained legal information and she would have to talk to her attorney before completing them. But, Mother testified that she read the articles and did the summaries but she never gave them to Ms. G------- because Mother's summaries indicated that Mother did not agree with the articles and she knew that Ms. G------- would not approve of the summaries. The Court finds no merit in Mother's argument. Ms. G------- never indicated to the Court that Mother's summaries had to show that Mother agreed with the articles. Mother's task was simply to summarize the articles, not agree with them. By failing to write and/or give the summaries to Ms. G------- or Dr. B----------, Mother could not progress toward having contact with the children.
Further, Mother failed to participate in individual therapy with an approved therapist to address her role in the breakdown of the relationship between Father and the children. Mother asserted that she found a therapist she wanted to use, Dr. N------. However, according to the Stipulated Order, Mother's therapist had to be approved by Ms. G-------. After speaking with Dr. N------, Ms. G------- did not find him to be appropriate for the program. Ms. G------- advised Mother that Dr. N------ was not appropriate and that Mother needed to find another therapist. Dr. B---------- also advised Mother that she needed to find another therapist and gave Mother a list of seven (7) therapists Mother could call. Mother stated that the parties had previously used three (3) of the therapists on Dr. B----------'s list. Another therapist was in Dover, DE and, according to Mother, the therapist was too far away from her. Mother called Dr. E---- G-- and Dr. E-----, and they were not accepting new clients. However, Dr. B---------- called Dr. G-- and arranged for Mother to get an appointment and advised Mother of same. Mother never followed through with scheduling the appointments but maintained that she wanted her therapy to be with Dr. N------.
Finally, Mother has not complied with Dr. B----------'s request to meet. Dr. B---------- has tried numerous times to engage Mother in beginning the process of reintegration with the children. Dr. B---------- first contacted Mother around the end of November, 2016, and they scheduled an appointment for Mother on December 2, 2016. During the appointment, Mother communicated to Dr. B---------- that she did not want to complete the case summaries from Ms. G-------'s website because they contained legal information and she would have to talk to her attorney before completing the summaries. Mother also stated that she did not understand why she had to participate in the Court ordered therapy or why the letters she had written were rejected. After the first appointment, Dr. B---------- contacted Mother one (1) week later to set up another appointment. Mother did not respond. Dr. B---------- continued to contact Mother without a response in January and February, 2017. In March, 2017, Mother contacted Dr. B---------- for an update regarding the children. Dr. B---------- set up a telephone appointment with Mother and told her what the payment would be as it was an appointment. Their scheduled appointment was for March 13, 2017. On March 12, 2017, Dr. B---------- asked Mother to confirm their telephone appointment but Mother did not confirm, instead she asked Dr. B---------- a question regarding payment. The March 13, 2017, appointment never occurred and Dr. B---------- provided Mother with another appointment date for March 17, 2017. However, that appointment never occurred either. Dr. B---------- told Mother that when she is ready for help she would be available.
Because Mother failed to comply with the Order, Mother had not seen the children in approximately four and one half (4 ½) months as of the Review Hearing. Father and the counselors report that the boys miss seeing their Mother and that the boys are confused as to why Mother has not complied with her responsibilities so she can resume contact with them. Allegedly, A----- has reported that he does not believe that Mother will ever comply with the Order because "She hates Father more than she loves us" and because "she is set in her ways and believes she will leave town before she complies".
Father's direct examination.
On October 24, 2016, when the Court entered the Interim Order, the Court had no intention of ever keeping the children from seeing Mother and was optimistic that Mother would participate in the program. When Mother testified at the initial hearing, she told the Court she understood that the children needed to have a relationship with their Father and that she wanted them to have a relationship with their Father. The Court hoped that Mother would follow the instructions of the therapists and that it would not be necessary for the sequestration period to last the entire ninety (90) days. Unfortunately, Mother has taken a different path and the Court is disappointed to find she has not complied with any aspect of the treatment set out in the Stipulated Order entered on October 28, 2016. Therefore, the Court must find this factor supports Father's position. While the Court would typically not support keeping a parent out of a child's life, the Court has concerns about the children experiencing a setback in the progress they have made with their relationship with Father if the Court were to allow Mother contact without Mother engaging in the therapeutic process. At this time, the contact Mother has with the children and when that contact begins is completely in Mother's control.
4. The child's adjustment to his or her home , school and community;
Based on the testimony from the witnesses, it appears the boys have adjusted well to Father's home and their new schools. A----- is getting good grades, has met friends, and wrestles. A----- has researched high schools. His first choice is to attend First State Military Academy in Clayton, Delaware. There is a bus stop equal distance from Father's home to this school and from Mother's home to this school. A----- hopes to attend the Naval Academy for college and has determined that his best chance of getting into the Naval Academy is to attend First State Military School. O---'s grades are good and he has been involved in soccer, basketball, and flag football. O--- also has a lot of new friends. Unfortunately, neither boy has kept in touch with friends from Mother's home and their old schools. But there is no indication that the boys could not rekindle those relationships when they resume contact with Mother. Both boys are involved in Church activities at Father's home.
At this time, this factor supports Father's position that he should have primary residence and that the children should remain in their current schools in Father's district. However, this factor does not eliminate the possibility that the children could eventually resume a shared residence arrangement as A----- could get a bus from Mother's house as easily as he could get a bus from Father's house and O--- could be transported to and from his school.
5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
The mental and physical health of both parents and the children was addressed in the Interim Order. The most important issue during the Review Hearing was that Mother had yet to engage in the individual therapy which could have resolved basic challenges this family faces because of Mother's behavior after the incident between A----- and Father in October, 2015. Mother must accept responsibility for her role in the breakdown in the relationship between Father and the children. Until Mother addresses these issues in the therapeutic setting with the children, this family appears to be stuck in a holding pattern. The therapeutic vacation successfully reunited the children with Father. Now the program must reintegrate Mother with the children. Ms. G------- testified that she has seen children in this situation suffer a great setback if the sequestered parent is reintroduced prior to that parent having the appropriate counseling. Ms. G------- believes A----- and O--- are particularly at risk because they exhibit significant signs of empathy toward their Mother and seem to feel a sense of responsibility for her well-being. According to Ms. G-------, if contact is resumed to soon, there is a risk they will quickly relapse since Mother, whom Ms. G------- believes to be the alienating parent, has not "reformed".
Therefore, because Mother has not participated in the program, this factor supports Father having sole custody and primary residence with Mother's contact to begin in a therapeutic setting.
6. Past and present compliance by both parties with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title;
13 Del. C. § 701(a) states in relevant part: "The father and mother are the joint natural guardians of their minor child and are equally charged with the child's support, care, nurture, welfare, and education."
After the initial hearing in October, 2016, the parents' rights and responsibilities were set forth in the Stipulated Order of October 28, 2016. Father has complied with the Order. As more fully set forth above, Mother has failed to comply with that Order. Because Mother has not fulfilled her obligations under that Order, the Court must find that this factor strongly favors Father having sole custody and primary residence.
7. Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
13 Del. C. § 706A in relevant part states:
(a) Any evidence of a past or present act of domestic violence, whether or not committed in the presence of the child, is a relevant factor that must be considered by the court in determining the legal custody and residential arrangements in accordance with the best interests of the child.
In the Interim Order, the Court found this factor neutral. There was no additional evidence of domestic violence presented at the Review Hearing. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the Interim Order, the Court finds this factor neutral.
8. The criminal history of any party or adult member of a household and shall take into consideration whether a party or adult member of a household has pled guilty or no contest to or was convicted of a criminal offense.
In the Interim Order, the Court found this factor neutral. A review of the criminal history of the parents and the members of their households, shows no new criminal activity since the Interim Order was issued. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the Interim Order the Court finds this factor neutral.
CONCLUSION
When making a final decision regarding custody and visitation, the Court must analyze the best interest factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722. As set forth herein, the Court finds that factors (1), (2), (7), and (8) are neutral and factors (3), (4), (5), and (6) favor Father's position that Father should have sole custody and primary residence with Mother having contact starting in a therapeutic setting and progressing at the direction of the therapist. At the end of the initial hearing, the Court believed Mother when she testified that she supported Father having a relationship with the children. The Court was optimistic that Mother would engage in the follow up treatment and resume contact with the children in perhaps less than the anticipated ninety (90) days. At the Review Hearing, the Court was extremely disappointed to learn that not only had Mother not resumed contact with the children but she had not completed even one task required of her pursuant to the Stipulated Order the parties signed before Father and children left for the therapeutic vacation. The children and Father have spent a lot of time and effort repairing their relationship. Mother has spent no effort addressing her role in the problems this family faces. Ms. G------- has concerns that the children would regress in their progress with their relationship with Father if Mother were reintegrated into the children's lives before she has engaged in her own therapy. The purpose of the Review Hearing was to give both parents the opportunity to demonstrate their ability and willingness to cooperate with the Interim Order. Given Mother's behavior in the year prior to the initial hearings in this matter and Mother's failure to comply with the Court's Interim Order, the Court finds that contact of the children with Mother would significantly impair their emotional development and is not in their best interest.
WHEREFORE, the Court enters the following Order:
A. Father shall have sole custody.
B. Father shall have primary residence.
C. Mother's contact with the children shall begin in the therapeutic setting and progress to Mother having visitation at least every other weekend and one evening overnight per week at the discretion of the therapist. If Mother makes satisfactory progress in counseling and the counselors support contact outside of the therapeutic setting, the Standard Contact Guidelines shall apply to Mother's contact schedule. If Mother believes she has fully
complied with the counselors' requests and the counselors have not authorized contact with Mother, Mother may file a Petition to Modify Visitation pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 729(a) as visitation may be modified at any time if it is in the best interest of the children.
D. The Motion to Vacate the Order Changing the Children's Schools is DENIED.
E. The Motion to Modify the Court's Interim Order is DENIED.
F. This Order is being entered after a full hearing. Any modifications as to custody and residence of the children shall be pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 729(c).
1. Holidays: Father shall have the children on the holidays in Column 1 in odd-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in the even-numbered years. Mother shall have the children on the holidays in Column 1 in the even-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in odd-numbered years:
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| Easter or other religious holiday | Memorial Day |
| Fourth of July | Labor Day |
| Halloween | Thanksgiving Day |
| Christmas Day | Christmas Eve |
13 Del. C. § 729(c) provides: An order entered by the Court after a full hearing on the merits concerning the legal custody of a child or his or her primary residence may be modified only as follows:
(1) If the application for modification is filed within 2 years after the Court's most recent order concerning these matters, the Court shall not modify its prior order unless it finds, after a hearing, that continuing enforcement of the prior order may endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development.
(2) If the application for modification is filed more than 2 years after the Court's most recent order concerning these matters, the Court may modify its prior order after considering:
--------a. Whether any harm is likely to be caused to the child by a modification of its prior order, and, if so, whether that harm is likely to be outweighed by the advantages, if any, to the child of such a modification;
b. The compliance of each parent with prior orders of the Court concerning custody and visitation and compliance with his or her duties and responsibilities under § 727 of this title including whether either parent has been subjected to sanctions by the Court under § 728(b) of this title since the prior order was entered; and
c. The factors set forth in § 722 of this title.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of June , 2017.
/s/ _________
JANELL S. OSTROSKI
Judge cc: Parties, Counsel, File