Opinion
CN18-01533 Petition 21-12918
01-25-2022
L.R. v. S.R. Petition for Relocation: S------ R---- (M) (DOB: --/--/--), S---- R---- (M) (DOB: --/--/--)
Megan Mahle, Esq. Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. Kara Swasey, Esq.
Trial concluded, additional evidence received, ready for decision: November 24, 2021
Megan Mahle, Esq. Community Legal Aid Society, Inc.
Kara Swasey, Esq.
LETTER DECISION AND ORDER
Robert Burton Coonin, Judge
Dear Ms. Mahle and Ms. Swasey, This is the Court's decision regarding the Petition for Relocation filed by L--- R---- (hereinafter "Mother"), represented by Megan Mahle, Esq., against S ------ R---- (hereinafter "Father"), represented by Kara Swasey, Esq., in the interest of minor children S ------ R---- born - ---- --, ---- and S---- R---- born --------- --, ---- (hereinafter "Children").
Procedural History
Mother filed her Petition for Relocation on June 2, 2021. This Court previously issued an Order on March 31, 2021 modifying the parties custodial arrangement. Mother was granted sole legal custody and primary residential placement of Children. Father was permitted supervised visitation once the Criminal No Contact Order was lifted. Further that visitation was to be supervised by a mutually agreed upon supervisor, but if they could not agree, then it was to take place weekly for 90 minutes at the Visitation Center.
On November 15, 2021, the Court held a final hearing on the Petition for Relocation. The Court took testimony from Mother, Father, M ------ F ----- from ------ ----- ----------- -------, and V------- G ------ ("Paternal Aunt"). The Court then requested the parties provide the Court with proposed final visitation schedules, accounting for the possible outcomes of the Court. Mother and Father submitted their proposals on November 24, 2021.
Background Facts
Mother is currently living with Children in Charlotte, North Carolina. Mother has been living in North Carolina since mid-June 2021. Mother works remotely for ------- ---------- as an aftermarket biochemistry instruments sales associate. Mother has enrolled Children in a public charter school in Charlotte.
Father continues to live in Newark, DE and is employed by ------ .
Relocation
For the sake of judicial economy, the Court will not repeat in detail all of the testimony it can obtain from the record, but it will note the salient testimony as it pertains to the required statutory analysis. When there is a proposed relocation of a child for 60 days or more, outside the State of Delaware or that will materially affect the current custodial and residential arrangement, the Court must conduct an analysis guided by the factors of 13 Del. C. § 734. Given the considerable distance between Delaware and North Carolina, the Court finds that such a relocation would materially affect the current custodial and residential arrangement. Accordingly, the required factors are as follows:
When in the course of litigation involving custody or visitation, there is a proposed relocation of a child for a period of 60 days or more involving either a move outside the State of Delaware or a move that materially affects the current custodial and residential arrangement or order, the Court must consider the following factors: 13 Del. C. § 734 provides:
(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the individual proposing to relocate and with the nonrelocating individual, siblings, and other significant individuals in the child's life.
(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child.
(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.
(4) The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child.
(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of the individual seeking the relocation, either to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the nonrelocating individual;
(6) Whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general quality of life for both the individual seeking the relocation and the child, including financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity.
(7) The reasons of each individual for seeking or opposing the relocation.
(8) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.
(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's relationship with the individual proposing to relocate and with the nonrelocating individual, siblings, and other significant individuals in the child's life;
Children's Relationship with Mother:
As it relates to S ------, Mother testified that she has a good relationship with him, though he challenges her the most. Mother indicated that S ------ saw most of the conflict that occurred between Mother and Father and suffered the most as a result. S ------ is also very aware of his situation, and he is very articulate. As it relates to S----, Mother considers him to be her baby and that they have a great relationship. Mother has been the Children's primary caretaker since March 2021. Prior to that time, Mother and Father maintained a shared custodial arrangement.
Children's Relationship with Other Family Members:
Where Mother relocated to in North Carolina, the Children have more extended family nearby than they had in Delaware. During the summertime, the Children were seeing extended family every weekend, but during the school year it is about every two weeks that they see family. The extended family available to Children are both Mother and Father's extended family.
Children's Relationship with Father:
Father testified that the Children are very close, like twins and are always doing activities together. Father contends that he and S ------, his first born, have always had a bond, as Father was the first person that S ------ saw. Mother filed for a Protection from Abuse ("PFA") Order against Father on behalf of Children, which was granted on March 10, 2021 and is set to expire on March 10, 2022. Further, there continues to be criminal charges pending against Father, though those charges have yet to come to trial. Father has not seen either Child since the beginning of May 2021, and at that time he only saw them for one day. Father was permitted to have supervised visitation at the visitation center, but no visits were held there after Mother notified the center that the service was no longer needed as family supervision was being used as an alternative.
The Court finds this factor favors granting relocation. It is clear to the Court that Mother has been Children's primary caretaker and that the Children are clearly bonded. The Court further finds that the existing Protection from Abuse order, which places restrictions on Father's contact, and pending criminal charges against Father relating to abuse of Children weigh against Father.
(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child;
S ------ is currently eight years old. S---- is currently six years old. Neither child has any special needs. The Children have been living in North Carolina since June 2021. M ------ F -----, an administrator at ------ ----- ----------- ------ where Children have been enrolled in school, testified to Children's progress in school. Neither child has had any behavioral issues. S---- is in the first grade and doing excellently academically. S ------ is in the third grade and doing well in most classes. Of the greatest concern for S ------ is his grade in English Language Arts, in which he has an F. Mr. F ----- reported that both Children are the life of their classrooms and are very happy.
The Court finds this factor favors relocation.
(3)The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties;
Mother relocated with Children, prior to the Court permitting such, to Charlotte, North Carolina in June 2021. Prior to relocating, Mother was living with both Children in Delaware. Prior to Mother's relocation and pursuant to the March 31, 2021 Order, Father was permitted to have supervised in person visitation, if a mutually agreed upon third party was selected, otherwise Father was to have weekly visitation for 90 minutes at the Family Visitation Center. The parties attempted to have supervised visits using paternal family members, but Father decided he no longer wanted to do that and sought to have visitation solely through the Visitation Center. It is clear to the Court that given the prior Order's restrictions on Father's contact with Children, Father's contact with the Children was going to be significantly reduced.
Where Mother is located in North Carolina, she is an estimated seven-hour drive from Father. That length of distance is a significant impediment to any in person contact. However, in light of the limited amount of in person contact Father was expecting to have, the impact this relocation has on that in person contact is dramatically less than what it would have been without the existing limitations. Electronic contact, which Father is also entitled to, is significantly easy to maintain, even where there is a great distance between.
The Court finds this factor weighs slightly against permitting relocation given the impact on the feasibility of maintaining in person visitation arrangements. The Court finds there is no impact of permitting relocation on maintaining Father and Children's relationship through electronic contact.
(4) The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child;
The Court did not interview either Child and no testimony was presented about the Children's preferences. Therefore, the Court finds this factor is neutral to its analysis.
(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of the individual seeking the relocation, either to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the nonrelocating individual;
Mother relocated, prior to receiving Court permission, to Charlotte, North Carolina, approximately seven hours away from Delaware. Prior to deciding to do that, Mother attempted to secure housing in Delaware between December 2020 and March 2021. Mother testified that she spent every weekend looking for homes but was not successful due to a housing shortage and rising house prices. Mother was renting in Bear, DE and looked to the Wilmington Riverfront, as well as Newark for alternatives, but ultimately those available were out of her budget. Mothers last lease in Delaware was only for a term of two months, which suggests to the Court that Mother may have been contemplating relocation months earlier than her actual move. Mother testified she worked with a Newark based broker, but she had problems qualifying for homes due to her credit score issues, the market inflation, and her price range. Mother stated she was able to get mortgage financing through Cardinal Financing based out of the Carolinas. By that time, Mother had focused her energies on finding housing in North Carolina, rather than Delaware, as Mother did not ask about that financing possibly being used to finance a home in Delaware. Mother further stated that she did not look to any surrounding state such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Maryland for housing. Mother testified that she ultimately stopped looking in Delaware and focused on where family was located, not closer than seven hours away from Father. Paternal Aunt testified that she was aware of Mother's desire to move out of the state as early as March 2021, when Mother first brought up to her interest in moving out of Delaware. Mother ultimately bought her current home in May 2021 and moved officially in June 2021. Father testified that Mother had mentioned to him her interest in moving as early as 2019. It was not until June 2021 that Mother sough Court permission to relocate with Children.
Presently, there is an active Protection from Abuse order against Father. Mother incorrectly believed that meant she was not permitted to contact Father. That Order prohibits Father from contacting Mother but makes no mention of prohibiting Mother from contacting Father. Father was also permitted to have supervised visitation through the visitation center, something Mother admits to knowing about. Father was having once a week supervised visitation up until around the time Mother began executing on her plan to relocate. Mother claims she further believed that she did not have to ensure that Father was aware of the Children's wellbeing and statuses. Mother believed that providing information about the Children to Father's various family members was sufficient as long as she told his family to communicate that information to Father. Mother testified that at least as of May 2021, she was aware that Father did not want his family involved in supervising visitation.
Once in North Carolina, Mother enrolled Children in school locally. The Children are currently attending ------ ----- ----------- ------- . M ------ F -----, Student Support Services Coordinator at the school testified to the contact information on file for Mother and Father. Mother's listed email contact information with the school is --------- @yahoo.com. Father's listed email contact information with the school is ------------ @gmail.com. Mother testified that both of those emails are in fact her own emails and that anything the school was "sending" to Father, was actually going to her instead. Mother knew that if the school attempted to contact Father through email, Father would not receive those communications. Mother further stated she did not provide Father's contact information to any of the extracurricular activities that the Children are enrolled in. The Court believes that Mother's actions were designed to isolate Father from his Children. Mother has not informed Father of anything relating to Children. Mother did state that she provided Father's phone number to the Children's new doctors, although she did not provide the doctor's names to Father.
The Court is not convinced by Mother's testimony that she did not know she could contact Father. The language of the PFA is clear, that Father is not permitted contact, and not the other way around. Mother seemingly sought to prevent Father from having any knowledge of information regarding Children. Further, it is clear that is has been Mother's plan all along to relocate with Children, well before she filed for permission to relocate and potentially even before the Court's March 2021 Custody Order. Mother bought her current home before seeking Court permission to relocate. The Court also believes that Mother knew that her relocation to North Carolina would interfere with Father's visitation with Children and intentionally proceeded to do so anyway. There is a clear pattern on the part of Mother demonstrating her effort to thwart any relationship between Father and Children and to prevent Father from having access to any information about Children. The Court finds this factor weighs against relocation.
(6) Whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general quality of life for both the individual seeking the relocation and the child, including financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity;
Mother's employment is through ------- ------------ based in Wilmington, DE. Mother is permitted to work remotely. Therefore, Mother did not move for a new career opportunity she could not have had if she remained in Delaware. As to housing, Mother owns a four-bedroom home with a current monthly mortgage of $1,865. In Delaware after the sale of the marital home, Mother was only able to rent. Between April and June 2021, Mother was renting a three bedroom for $2,300 a month. The Court does find there was a slight financial benefit, in terms of housing specifically, to Mother moving to North Carolina. The Court however does not find that Mother could not have found housing that was equally beneficially within a closer proximity to Father.
While in Delaware, Children were attending ------- --------- -------, a local private school. In North Carolina, the Children are enrolled in ------ ----- ----------- ------- a public charter school. Mother did testify that her area's public school system is not the best, so she sought out an alternative charter school with a greater track record. The Court finds that the educational opportunities appear parallel between North Carolina and Delaware.
As to overall quality of life, the Court believes a relocation would be generally beneficial to Mother and Children. As to Mother, she repeatedly testified that the relocation has alleviated her fears connected to Father and for Children, demonstrating a shift in emotional wellbeing for Mother by moving. Further, the move brought Mother and Children closer to extended family. When in Delaware, Mother had no biological family in the area and Father's family lived outside of Delaware as well. In North Carolina, Mother and Children have access to closer additional maternal and paternal family members. Such greater access to family is only beneficial in the eyes of the Court.
The Court finds this factor favors granting relocation. Although any possible benefit in terms education and finances appear negligible, the emotional benefit associated with relocating closer to extended family certainly would serve to benefit Children.
(7) The reasons of each individual for seeking or opposing the relocation;
Mother testified that she is now seeking permission to relocate for herself and her Children's safety. Mother testified that there is a history of abuse by Father against her, and then there was the reported abuse by Father against the Children. Mother further testified that Father has attempted to have her fired from her job after she sought a Protection from Abuse Order, Father entered her home to turn off her security system, and Father has threatened and contacted Mother's family. Mother views relocation as a way to feel safe again and would be overall beneficial for her emotional wellbeing.
Father is opposing relocation because he desires to be with his Children and the distance of the Children makes regular visitation not feasible. Father expressly indicated a desire to maintain his relationship with the Children, but stated that is not possible if they are in North Carolina. Father does not believe he was considered at all by Mother when she decided to move, and that the move is not in the best interest of the Children.
The Court finds this factor favors relocation given Mother's validated concerns of abuse against the Children, by way of the PFA.
(8)Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.
The Court utilizes the best interest factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722.
Much of the prior analysis also relates to the best interest's analysis, however the Court will discuss the most salient portions of the best interests factors relevant to this matter.
(i) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his custody and residential arrangements;
Mother seeks to relocate with Children to North Carolina.
Father opposes Mother and Children's relocation to North Carolina.
The Court finds this factor neutral to its analysis given that the parties have taken opposing positions.
(ii) The wishes of the child as to his custodian(s) and residential arrangements;
The Court did not interview either child and no testimony was presented pertaining to this factor. Therefore, the Court find this factor neutral to its analysis.
(iii) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabiting in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other residents of the household or person who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
This factor closely relates to the prior analysis under section (1) above. The Court will note that Mother has been Children's primary caregiver. Father has had little contact since the issuance of the March 31, 2021 Order and entry of the PFA, though he was a joint custodian prior to that time. The Court finds this factor favors Mother given the recent deterioration of the relationship between Father and Children associated with the PFA.
(iv) The child's adjustment to his home, school, and community;
Since moving to North Carolina, Mother reports that Children have adjusted very well to their new home life. Mother further stated that the Children are very happy and hug and thank her more now. Mother also believes that the Children are more at peace now. S---- previously used to have an issue with bedwetting, but Mother states that has stopped. Mr. F -----, an administrator at the Children's new school, also testified that the Children have had no issues with their adjustment to the new school. Children are also actively involved in their community. Mother and Children attend Friendship Christian Church together. Both Children participate in football, martial arts, basketball, and will begin baseball as well.
The Court finds this factor favors Mother.
(v) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
Mother reports that she has no physical health issues, nor any mental health issues presently. Mother reports that she was recently diagnosed with pre-diabetes. Mother did previously engage in mental health treatment but has not seen anyone since January 2021. Father reports that he has no physical health issues, nor any mental health issues. Father did report that during the pendency of these proceedings he contracted COVID, pneumonia, and an infection, and nearly died.
Neither child has any special medical needs. Since moving to North Carolina, Mother has established the Children with a pediatrician. The Children also saw a therapist in Delaware. Since moving, the Children have not participated in therapy. Mother reports that she has been working on getting therapy set up, but that she is waiting to have Children's records transferred before that can begin.
The Court finds this factor is neutral to its analysis.
(vi) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title;
Mother unilaterally made the decision to relocate to North Carolina, without consulting Father whose visitation would be impacted, and without requesting permission from the Court. Father became aware of Mother's intention to relocate sometime around May 10, 2021, on which date Father filed with the Court a "Motion for Restriction of Child Relocation" indicating his object to Mother's relocation that he had learned about from family. Mother did not file the Petition for Relocation until June 2, 2021. It further appears that Mother has done as much as she can to prevent Father from having access to his Children as he is permitted and from having access to information regarding Children.
After the entry of the March 31, 2021 Order, the parties attempted to coordinate supervised visitation using paternal family members. Initially, Father was willing to try visitation in that manner. Father was also willing to having a different person act as supervisor, such as his fiancée or ex-girlfriend, or professional supervisor Paulette Lukas, but Mother opposed those alternatives. However, as he was entitled to do so, Father decided it was best to have visitation at the Visitation Center as was also permitted. The parties had completed orientation with the Visitation Center, however after the creation of the agreement with paternal family members, Mother notified the Visitation Center that the service was no longer needed, and the families account was closed. No visitation therefore ever took place at the Visitation Center. Only one visitation took place after the March 31, 2021 Order whereby paternal family supervised. As to virtual visitation, it is unclear based on the testimony whether that ever took place prior to this hearing. Mother and paternal family all determined it was necessary for someone to also supervise that contact. Father however continued to indicate that he did not want his family involved in visitation and he proposed alternative supervisors, which Mother declined. Mother's relocation with the Children coupled with both parents' unwillingness to agree on a visitation supervisor effectively ended Father's visitation.
Mother has also wholly failed to provide Father with any information regarding Children. Mother contends that she believed that she was not permitted to contact Father, given the PFA in place. However, the Court is not convinced Mother truly believed that given the clear language of the PFA indicating only that Father was not to contact Mother. Mother would only provide information to Father's family who would then purportedly provide that information to Father. However, Father contends that his relationship with his family has always been distant and has become particularly strained since they have taken Mother and Children's side after the abuse allegations came to light, so it is unclear whether paternal family would have ever provided anything to Father in the first place. Regardless, Mother testified that she did not believe that she had to ensure that Father received information regarding his Children.
Testimony established Mother's willingness for Father to have restricted visitation, though exclusively when Children were visiting with Father's family. Father had one visit supervised by family. After that time, although Father has the right not to want visitation supervised by his family, Father allowed his issues with his own family to interfere with his relationship and contact with his Children. The Court makes it clear, it is within Father's right to want or not want certain conditions imposed for visitation as to the identity of the visitation supervisor, but Father would seemingly rather have no visitation if that visitation is only possible if supervised by his own family, as has been the case since April/May 2021. Father has also proposed alternative visit supervisors, though he was not willing to provide additional identifying information about his current fiancée to the Court, who he has proposed as a supervisor. Father indicated that he has been distant with his family for years, but their relationship deteriorated after the allegations of child abuse arose, though, it is unclear to the Court the true extent of the family issues. The Court believes Father has failed to make his best effort to have contact with his Children, by entirely refusing visitation simply because of his family's involvement. The Court recognizes that is Father's right, but in doing so, Father is neglecting his rights and responsibilities to his Children to foster a parent-child relationship.
Finally, the Court finds that both Mother and Father have entirely failed to cooperate and compromise on finding a visitation supervisor, which only serves to harm the Children.
The Court finds that Mother has failed in her rights and responsibilities for her unilateral decision to relocate without permission and in her efforts to block Father's access to Children as a result, and further because of Mother's failure to keep Father apprised of the Children's information regarding school, activities, and health. The Court finds that Father has failed in his rights and responsibilities by refusing visitation reasonably offered because of his personal relationship with his family. Both parties have failed their Children by not putting forth reasonable efforts to maintain Father's contact.
(vii) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title;
The Court takes judicial notice of this Courts prior order of March 31, 2021 wherein the parties recent history of domestic violence allegations is discussed in more detail. The Court notes that since the entry of that Order and the March 2021 PFA against Father, no further allegations of abuse haven arisen, although the absence of contact would certainly reduce any opportunity for conflict.
The Court finds this factor favors Mother.
(viii) 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.
Mother does not have a criminal record of concern. Father continues to have pending criminal charges associated with the alleged physical abuse allegations against Children, although the criminal charges are not evidence of any criminal conviction.
The Court finds this factor favors Mother.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that factors one (1), two (2), six (6), and seven (7) all favor relocation. Factor four (4) is neutral. Factor three (3) weighs against relocation only slightly. And factor five (5) weighs against relocation. As it relates to the best interest factors, factors three (iii), four (iv), seven (vii), and eight (viii) all favor Mother, while the remaining factors are neutral. Under factor six (vi), the Court finds that both Mother and Father have failed in their rights and responsibilities to Children. Overall, the factors weigh in favor of permitting relocation, and as such, relocation will be permitted. Father's visitation is permitted to continue in a new manner, given the distance of Children from Father.
The Court believes it is entirely impractical to require two young children to sit through hours of traveling over the course of a weekend to have a visit for 90 minutes as previously ordered, therefore permitting supervised weekend visitation makes the most sense, assuming a supervisor can be identified for overnight visitation. Although Mother is permitted to relocate, that relocation and Mother's active efforts to thwart Father's relationship, contact, and knowledge about Children has and will have a detrimental impact on Father's relationship with Children and so it is only equitable to require Mother to bear the majority of the costs of Father's visitation with Children.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Relocation: Mother, L--- R----, is permitted to relocate to Charlotte, North Carolina with Children S ------ R---- born ----- --, ---- and S---- R---- born --------- --, ----.
2. Visitation: Unless the parties mutually agree in writing to an alternative arrangement, the following arrangement shall apply:
a. School Year: Father shall have visitation with Children one weekend every other month from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon in Delaware. The parties are encouraged to coordinate the weekend by considering Children's school schedule and any days off from school. However, absent an agreement, in the alternative this visitation will take place on the third weekend of the respective visitation month.
i. Father is permitted to have reasonable additional visitation should he desire to travel to North Carolina. Father may have such visitation in the alternate month from Children visiting Delaware. Father may also have additional visitation in North Carolina, provided he provide Mother two weeks advance notice of his intended visitation.
b. Summer Break: Father is entitled to six weeks of visitation beginning July 1st. So long as that visitation remains supervised, Children shall be enrolled in a day camp during the weekdays and evening, overnight, and weekends shall remain supervised.
c. Spring Break: Father shall have visitation with Children every spring break beginning the day after the Children are released from school through the day before school resumes.
d. Winter Break: During even numbered-years, Father shall have visitation with Children from December 26th to the day before school resumes. During odd numbered-years, Father shall have visitation with Children for the entirety of Winter Break from the day after Children are released from school through the day before school resumes. Winter Break is defined by Children's school.
e. Holidays: In even-numbered years, Father is entitled to the following: Thanksgiving, and Memorial Day. In odd-numbered years, Father is entitled to Labor Day and Easter, if Easter does not fall on Children's Spring Break. Father shall have Children for the Fourth of July, given the Summer Break schedule. Father will also have Children for Christmas in accordance with the Winter Break schedule. Father may elect to have Children on Halloween if it falls on the weekend.
3. Visitation Supervision and Cost: All visitation to be had by Father is to remain supervised. The parties are strongly encouraged to mutually agree in writing to permit a biological relative or other third party to supervise Father's visitation. Otherwise, to the extent that Father's visitation remains supervised, Father's visitation must be supervised by a non-familial professional supervisor or State/Agency visitation center. For any visitation to occur in North Carolina, Mother is to provide Father a list of professional or State-run visitation supervision options, including their contact information, from which Father may select his preferred choice. If Father fails to select an option, Mother shall select a visitation supervisor from the list and notify Father. For any visitation to occur in Delaware, Father is to provide Mother with a list of professional or State-run visitation supervision options, including their contact information, from which Mother is to select her preferred option. If Mother fails to select an option, Father shall select a visitation supervisor from the list and notify Mother. Mother shall be responsible for the full cost Father's visitation supervision when Father visits in North Carolina. Father shall contribute $60 to the cost of supervision, per visit, and Mother shall be responsible for all remaining costs of supervised visitation in Delaware.
$60 is Father's estimated cost of visitation per visit, had Mother remained in Delaware and visitation was conducted at the Family Visitation Center.
a. So long as visitation is required to be supervised, Father must have a supervisor at all times, including overnights. If there is no professional supervisor or a biological or other third party has not been agreed to that is available to supervise Father's overnight visitation, then Father's weekend and extended visitation time will be available during the daytime between 8 AM to 8 PM, based on the availability of the professional supervisor. During the overnight time period where there is no supervision available, Mother is to arrange to either personally be in Delaware for Children to remain with her overnight or arrange for biological family to be present in Delaware with whom Children are to remain during the overnight period.
4. Visitation Arrangements and Cost: Mother is responsible for coordinating Children's travel arrangements to and from Delaware and providing such information to Father at least 10 days in advance of visitation. Mother shall be responsible for all travel costs of Children to Delaware. Father shall be responsible for all of his own transportation and living costs associated with having any visitation in North Carolina.
a. Mother may arrange for Children to travel either by plane, train, or vehicle. If Children are transported via vehicle, exchanges are to take place at State Police Troop 2 in Bear, Delaware. If Children are transported via train, exchanges are to occur curbside at the Wilmington Train Station. If Children are transported via plane as unaccompanied minors, exchanges are to take place in accordance with airline and airport rules and regulations. If Mother accompanies Children via plane, then exchanges are to occur curbside at the airport. Children may fly into either the Philadelphia or BWI airport. Father's transporting of Children to and from exchanges must also be supervised.
5. Virtual Contact: Father shall be entitled to virtual contact with Children via Zoom, or equivalent, every other day between 7:00 PM and 8:00 PM for up to one hour, based on Children's attention span/interest. Those Zoom sessions are to be set up by Mother and may be recorded. If a Zoom session is missed due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties, then the Zoom session will be made up on the next day at the same time. Mother is to ensure Children are available and logged into Zoom, but may not participate in the visitation herself.
a. Mother shall be entitled to virtual contact with Children via Zoom or similar electronic platform every other day between 7:00 PM and 8:00 PM when Children have extended visitation with Father. Extended visitation is considered visitation longer than one weekend, Friday through Sunday. During Father's weekend visitation, Mother is entitled to have virtual contact with Children on Saturday evening, at 7:00 PM for 15 minutes maximum for a brief check-in. Father shall facilitate Mother's contact by ensuring Children are available and logged into the electronic platform, either as set up by Father, or as provided by Mother in advance. Father may not participate in Mother's contact during Father's visitation time.
6. Mother shall make Children available for virtual therapeutic services between Father and Children if such is determined to be appropriate by Children's therapeutic provider.
7. Given the complexity of the visitation arrangements, the parties are permitted to communicate strictly regarding Children via mobile application, "Our Family Wizard". The cost of such is to be shared by the parties. Father otherwise continues to be subject to the contact restrictions regarding contact Mother in accordance with the existing Protection from Abuse Order.
8. The parties may modify the terms of this Order as to the visitation schedule and timing, as well as to visitation supervisors by agreement in writing.
9. Father may file a Motion and Affidavit for Counsel Fees within 15 days of this Order, and Mother will have 15 days to respond, at which time the Court will take the issue under advisement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.