Opinion
No. 501, 2001
Submitted: March 1, 2002
Decided: April 1, 2002
Court Below-Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County File No. 47, 254 Petition No. 01-21550.
Affirmed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
DIANA FOXWELL, Petitioner Below-Appellant, v. DONALD CALDWELL, Respondent Below-Appellee. No. 501, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: March 1, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
Joseph T. Walsh, Justice:
ORDER
This 1st day of April 2002, upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, Diana Foxwell, filed this appeal from an order of the Family Court, dated September 25, 2001, dismissing her petition for a rule to show cause against the appellee, Donald Caldwell. Foxwell alleged in her petition, and Caldwell admitted, that Caldwell had signed a Certificate of Marriage on behalf of the parties' daughter so that she could get married at age 17. Foxwell asserted that Caldwell's actions were in contempt of a prior Family Court order, dated December 4, 1989, which awarded sole custody of the parties' daughter to Foxwell. Foxwell also requested that her daughter's marriage be annulled.
(2) The Family Court denied Foxwell's request to annul her daughter's marriage on the ground that Foxwell's Rule to Show Cause petition against Caldwell was an inappropriate means to seek annulment of the marriage.
Furthermore, the Family Court noted that the daughter, who appeared before the Court, had since turned 18 and had confirmed her marriage. Although the Family Court found Caldwell in contempt of the prior custody order, the court did not impose a fine because: (i) Foxwell indicated that she did not want to receive any money from Caldwell; and (ii) Caldwell's actions did not cause any harm given the daughter's expressed happiness in her marriage.
(3) We have reviewed the parties' contentions on appeal carefully. We find it manifest that this matter should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons set forth in, the Family Court's well-reasoned decision dated September 25, 2001. There was no error of law or abuse of discretion in the Family Court's judgment.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED.