Opinion
File No. CN09-04944 Case No. 19-13915 (Custody) Case No. 18- 26353 (RTSC) Case No. 19- 13609 (RTSC)
12-23-2019
M D , Petitioner v. J D , Respondent
Michael S. Corrigan, Esquire, 300 Creek View Road, Suite 103, Newark, Delaware; Attorneys for Petitioner. Amanda L. H. Brinton, Esquire, 521 North West Street, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Respondent.
ORDER ON PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND PETITIONS RULE TO SHOW CAUSE Michael S. Corrigan, Esquire, 300 Creek View Road, Suite 103, Newark, Delaware; Attorneys for Petitioner. Amanda L. H. Brinton, Esquire, 521 North West Street, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Respondent. ARRINGTON, Judge.
On December 16, 2019, the Court conducted a hearing on a Petition for Custody Modification filed by M D (hereafter "Mother") represented by Michael S. Corrigan, Esquire, against J D (hereafter "Father") represented by Amanda L. H. Brinton, Esquire, and two Petitions Rule to Show Cause. The Child at interest in these actions is A D (born , 2009)("Child").
As often occurs in custody matters, differences in each parent's culture and approach to caring for their child(ren) can lead to disharmony and can leave the child(ren) confused. In this Custody case and its companion Rules to Show Cause actions, there is a child with conflicted feelings that have manifested in some danger to the child. Based on the testimony presented at trial, Father appears to have a better handle on the situation and is better able to provide comfort and support for the child's needs. The Court resolves the three petitions as set forth below.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The history of this case is long and tortured. The first petition for custody was filed on September 2, 2009 and was dismissed on September 10, 2009. Mother filed again for custody on October 15, 2009 and a consent order from mediation was issued on December 2, 2009. Mother filed for Custody Modification on August 16, 2013 which petition was disposed by stipulation on October 9, 2013. Mother filed again for Custody Modification on January 7, 2014 and was disposed of by stipulation on August 9, 2014. A third Custody Modification petition was filed on February 20, 2015 which was resolved with a Letter Decision on September 11, 2015. Father filed two Rule to Show Cause petitions in 2016 and 2017.
With respect to this Order, Father filed a Petition Rule to Show Cause (18-26353) on August 31, 2018 alleging Mother was in contempt by means of failure to pay Father $2,085.00 in previously ordered attorney's fees. Mother has since stipulated to Petition Rule to Show Cause (18-26353) and will reimburse Father $2,085.00. The date for payment is set forth in the Order section of this decision.
Mother filed a Petition to Modify Custody (19-13915) on May 6, 2019, alleging that she only saw Child once the entire school year. Mother alleged that Father "failed to comply with the Order by failing to communicate with Mother with respect to Child after numerous written requests to do so." Mother filed a Petition Rule to Show Cause (19-13609) on the same day alleging that Father "wholly and completely fails to inform Mother of anything involving Child despite at least six written requests."
Dkt. #164.
Dkt. #162.
Father filed an Answer to the Petition to Modify Custody on May 30, 2019 "refuting the Petition." Father filed an Answer to the Rule to Show Cause Petition on May 30, 2019, alleging that Mother's actions and behaviors are the reasons why he needs to limit access to information.
Dkt. #168.
Dkt. #167.
Mother filed a Motion for Interim Relief Seeking Removal and Replacement of Reunification Counselor on August 7, 2019. Father filed a Response in opposition to the Motion on August 22, 2019. The Court denied the Motion on August 26, 2019. The Court conducted a Case Management teleconference on August 22, 2019 at which time the Court ordered that it would hear the two Petitions Rule to Show Cause in conjunction with the Petition to Modify Custody. The Court conducted the hearing on December 16, 2019.
DISCUSSION
Mother's Case
Mother testified that she lives in a three-bedroom home in S , Maryland with her paramour, J B . Prior to her move in May 2018, Mother resided in her childhood home in Wilmington, Delaware. Mother ultimately lost the Delaware home to foreclosure on May 11, 2018. Mother is expecting a second daughter and is scheduled to have a C-section on December 24, 2019. Mother is presently unemployed and has not had a job since 2015. Mother testified that remaining unemployed is a personal choice and that there has been "no need" for her to work. Mother was enrolled in the Paul Mitchell hair school from January 2019 through October 2019 but did not complete the course as of the date of trial. Mother plans to return to school at some time in the future.
Mother was arrested in July 2018 for a violation of probation charge. Mother was originally sentenced to three years but was fully discharged on November 1, 2018 after serving a thirty-day sentence in Delaware. Child was placed with Father due to Mother's incarceration. Mother testified that when she was released she attempted to contact Child by phone but was unsuccessful. Mother testified that she went to Child's school to see her but was denied access as Father informed the school that Mother was not permitted to see Child.
The parties submitted an Interim Stipulation entered as an Order of the Court on January 7, 2019. The stipulated interim order permitted Mother to have supervised visitation during therapy sessions with Child's therapist, Megan White. The goal of therapy was focused on reunifying Mother and Child. The first session took place in January 2019. Mother testified that she brought Child presents and photos to the first session. Mother stated that she told Child during the session that her dog was sick because of Child's absence in the dog's life. Although Mother knew this information caused Child to become upset, Mother explained that she believed it was appropriate to tell her "because it is the truth and that is how her family is."
The second reunification session took place on September 23, 2019. According to Mother's testimony, the session began with Mother asking Child about a conversation Child had with a maternal aunt. This question caused Child to become upset and the leave the room. Mother testified that she followed Child into the lobby area and was hugging her tightly although Child did not want to be touched. Mother testified that "resistance is okay" and although Child did not want to be touched, Mother felt as though Child "needed to know that her mother loves her."
It was reported that Child told Maternal Aunt that she had "certain feelings" toward Mother's present pregnancy.
Mother testified that the police were called to Ms. White's office and that Mother wanted Child arrested. Mother explained that the reason that she wanted Child arrested was to get Child a mental health evaluation.
Mother called Mr. Joseph Baker as a witness. Mr. B and Mother are in a relationship and have known one another for approximately five years. Mr. B testified that he first met Child toward the end of 2017. Mr. B testified that Child lived with Mother and Mr. B in Maryland from May 2018 until July 2018. Mr. Ba testified that Child was one the sweetest children he has ever met and he loves her as his own. Mr. B last saw Child on October 14, 2018, when he drove to Father's home to give her balloons and presents for her birthday. Mr. B explained that he did not want Child to feel as though he and Mother forgot about her while Mother was incarcerated. According to Mr. B , Child was very gloomy during this encounter and she was "not the person he used to know." Mr. B testified that he believes Child does not want to upset either parent but he does not see a reason why Mother should not be able to see Child.
Mother called Ms. E D as a witness. Ms. D has been Mother's therapist in Maryland since January 9, 2019. Ms. D helps Mother with anxiety and depression. Ms. D testified that Child is discussed during a majority of their sessions despite having very limited information about Child. Ms. D testified that Mother wants a "normal life with her daughter" and wants a good bond with Child. Ms. D explained that she has noticed significant progress in Mother and that Mother is very active in therapy.
In August 2019, Ms. D participated in a three-way conference call with Mother and Ms. White. Ms. D testified that the majority of the conference call consisted of Ms. White informing Ms. D of the history between Child and Mother. Ms. D testified that she believes the reunification sessions in the past were unsuccessful due the history between the parties and Ms. White. Ms. D testified that Mother feels as though Ms. White is attempting to take over as Child's mother. Ms. D is aware of the allegations Child had made toward Mother but testified that Mother denied all allegations when addressed in therapy.
The Court acknowledges that Father and Child engaged in successful reunification therapy with Ms. White in the past.
The Court notes Child had disclosed in the past that Mother would take her into the city to buy drugs, Mother would then take the drugs in the presence of Child and proceed to kick daughter after doing drugs.
Father's Case
Father testified that Child was placed with him after Mother was incarcerated in 2018. Prior to this placement, Father testified that he was unaware of Mother and Child's whereabouts. Father explained that he hired a private investigator for several months in order to locate his daughter. Father lives in a three-bedroom home in Wilmington, Delaware with Child, Paternal Grandparents, and Father's son on the weekends. Father is presently employed by F A at the New Castle County Airport. Father testified that his hours will vary depending on flight times but the hours are typically 6:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m.
There is a dispute as to whether Father was aware that Mother and Child were moving to Maryland in May 2018. According to Mother, she told Father of her plan to move to Maryland on Thanksgiving and Christmas in 2017.
Father testified that when he first received placement of Child she was very upset and confused because she had not seen Father in the two years prior. Father explained that Child eventually settled down and has adjusted well to living with Father in Delaware. Father believes that Child seeing Ms. White helped with the adjustment. Father testified that he and Child share a great relationship. Father explained that Child wakes up early to make sure she can see Father off to work each morning. Father testified that he and Child "run on an honor system" and he does not need to discipline her.
Father would like Child to continue seeing Ms. White. Father testified that he recently found a knife under Child's bedroom pillow. Father testified that Child explained that she needed the knife for protection in case Mother broke into her room. Additionally, Child has made statements that she hears dark voices in her head that she believes to be Mother. According to Father's testimony, Child has made statements relating to wanting to harm herself and he believes it best to continue with therapy. Child has begun seeing psychiatrist who prescribed Child a medication that seems to be helping with her mental health.
Father testified that communication with Mother is non-existent. Father explained that the parties do not agree on anything and that is why he asked Ms. White to be a "middle-man" for disagreements. On cross- examination, Father admitted that he was not good at communicating with Mother regarding Child in the past. Father admitted that he did not inform Mother that Child was seeing a psychiatrist or that she was recently prescribed medication. Father testified that he has gotten better and will keep improving on informing Mother.
Father called Ms. Megan White as a witness. Ms. White began seeing Child in 2014. Ms. White has helped Child with self-esteem issues as well as reunification with both parties. Ms. White described her time with Child as a "rollercoaster." Ms. White explained that in 2017 she remembers Child being angry with Father because he was not paying child support. Ms. White testified that since July 2018 the therapy has been focused on Child's feelings toward Mother.
Ms. White testified that during the first reunification session in January 2019, Child was very angry with Mother and that both Mother and Child were yelling at one another. Ms. White explained that Mother told Child that her dog was sick because the dog "missed Child too much." Mother eventually told Child that the dog was fine after Child became upset. Ms. White classified this as shocking, manipulative, and "emotional torment." Ms. White testified that she asked Mother to take responsibility for her actions but Mother would not do so. Ms. White testified that she never heard directly from Mother again following the first session.
Ms. White testified that the second reunification session took place on September 23, 2019. Ms. White explained that the session began by Mother asking Child about a conversation that she had with a maternal aunt. This question caused Child to become angry and she began to yell. Child told Mother she feels as though she has to "wear a mask every day." Ms. White reported that Mother told Child that she was brainwashed and Child proceeded to leave the office upset. Mother followed Child out of the office and began to "bear hug" her while Child continued to cry and tried to force Mother away. Child proceeded to bite Mother in order to break free from her hug. The police were ultimately called and Mother attempted to have Child arrested for assault.
Subsequent to the second attempt at reunification, the Child had another episode of suicidal ideations. Ms. White and Father discussed the issue and noted that there were no affirmative actions taken by the Child. Additionally, the Child had an appointment with her psychiatrist within a few days of the incident. Ms. White testified that the Rockford Center would not have been best for the Child at that stage noting that many children come out of Rockford worse than when they entered due to the seriousness of the other patients' conditions and some incidents of abuse that have occurred in the facility. Based on the recommendation of the professionals, Father decided to proceed with the psychiatrist and not to use the Rockford Center.
Ms. White testified that when she learned that the Child had a knife in her bed, Ms. White immediately was concerned about whether the Child intended to harm herself. The Child's explanation was that she did not intend herself any harm but rather wanted to protect herself if Mother came to the home. Ms. White sees this incident as a further example of the stress that the Child feels from Mother's presence. Ms. White does not recommend continuing reunification therapy at this time until Mother has made significant progress with her anger and has improved her understanding and respect for Child's feelings.
Father called Delaware State Police Senior Corporal Shelton as a witness. Corporal Shelton was the responding officer to the 911 call on September 23, 2019 reporting a domestic incident between a mother and daughter. Corporal Shelton testified that Mother wanted Child arrested for assaulting Mother. He reported that Child bit Mother's left wrist. According to Corporal Shelton, Mother also wanted to have Child evaluated. Corporal Shelton testified that during an inquiry into prior incidents concerning Mother, he found a report from September 5, 2010 that reported Mother threatened to kill herself and Child.
Father's Exhibit 1.
Father called Paternal Grandfather as a witness. Paternal Grandfather testified that he and Child share a strong relationship as they have a lot in common. Paternal Grandfather explained that he and Child share an interest in musical instruments and will make music videos together. Paternal Grandfather testified that he believes Child is happy and stabilized where she is now.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR CUSTODY PETITIONS
Since the previous Custody Order was entered by an interim consent Order, the Court must analyze all factors in 13 Del. C. §722(a) when determining a Petition for Custody Modification. The Court shall award both parents frequent and meaningful contact "unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that contact of the child with one parent would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development."
13 Del. C. §722(a): The Court shall determine legal custody and residential arrangement 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 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 cohabiting 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 and provided for in Chapter 7A of this title;
8. The criminal history of any party or other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.
1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
Mother is requesting joint legal custody and visitation with Child every weekend, vacations, and during the summer. One of the reasons Mother is seeking joint custody is for Child to be placed on Mother's medical insurance. Mother proposed that the parties could meet at a halfway point between Maryland and Delaware each Friday and Sunday to exchange Child despite the fact that the parents live approximately two hours apart. Mother expressed that seeing Child one hour per week during therapy sessions is not enough time. Mother would like to begin seeing Ms. Davis and the Child on Saturdays if granted the time.
Father is requesting that the current order remain in place with Father having sole legal custody and primary residential placement. Father testified that he hopes Child and Mother can rekindle a relationship but believes there are issues that need to be resolved first. Father testified that he does not presently believe the parties can communicate for joint custody purposes but he can communicate to keep Mother better informed.
Mother's desire to see the Child ignores the Child's strong negative feeling and reactions toward Mother. Conversely, Father's approach recognizes the current status of the Child and proposed a reunification with Mother on the Child's timeline. Factor one favors Father.
2. The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian or custodians and residential arrangements;
Child is ten years old and unable to adequately express her wishes. Father requested that the Court interview Child noting that the Child surprisingly requested to speak with the Court because she "has a lot to say". Father is unaware of what the Child would say but relates that the Child has had multiple incidents after visits with Mother that leads him to believe that the Child wishes to maintain the status quo at present. An exhibit introduced at trial was a letter from the Child clearly stating that she wishes to remain in Delaware. There was no evidence that the Child was coerced to write the letter.
Mother believes that Child will be "coached" on what to say if interviewed by the Court. Mother testified that she believes Child is too young to make a decision on where to live. The Court does not ascribe any negative impact to Mother's objection.
The Court denied Father's request based on Mother's objection. The Court typically will not interview children under age eleven. Additionally, the testimony concerning the Child's wishes was clear without having the interview. Ms. White, as the Child's counselor, presented sufficient facts that convinces the Court that an interview would not be in the Child's best interest.
Factor two is neutral as it relates to the parties.
3. The interactions 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;
Mother testified that prior to her incarceration, she shared a strong relationship with the Child. Mother testified that she was very active in Child's school, the two shared "Mommy-Daughter days" and described them as being "glued at the hip." Mother testified that she has "a lot of support" in Maryland but does not have any relatives there.
Mr. Baker testified that he shared a strong relationship with Child prior to Mother's incarceration. Mr. Baker explained that the last time he saw Child was on October 14, 2018 at Father's home. Mr. Baker explained that although Mother was incarcerated at the time, he did not want Child to think he and Mother forgot about her. The encounter was understandably uncomfortable for all involved.
Father testified that he and Child have a great relationship as the two of them "run on an honor system." Father explained the he and Child see movies and watch television together. Father helps Child with homework after school each day. Father testified that Child clings to her brother on the weekends that he is at Father's home. Father explained that Child sees other paternal relatives such as an uncle, an aunt and two cousins very often.
Paternal Grandparents live in the home with Father and Child. Paternal Grandfather explained that he takes Child to the park and watches her play on the trampoline. Paternal Grandfather testified that he and Child both share an interest in playing instruments and that the two make music videos together.
At the same time, Mother does not seem to appreciate that the move to Maryland removed the Child from her support system as Mother's own family does not live in Maryland and Father had to hire investigators to locate Mother and Child. Mother and Mr. Baker are the only significant individuals in the Child's life that live in Maryland. The remainder of the important individuals in the Child's life reside in Delaware.
Factor three weighs in favor of Father.
4. The child's adjustment to his or her home , school and community;
Mother testified that Child made a number of friends in the two months that she lived in Maryland. Mother testified that there are a number of children that live in her neighborhood that continue to ask for Child. A note for the Child submitted as an exhibit at trial notes the name of one child with whom she is familiar.
Father testified that Child is in the fourth grade at Forest Oak Elementary School in Newark, Delaware. Child does not have an IEP and does well in school. Father testified that Child has a number of friends at school. Father explained that there are not many children in his neighborhood but he is working on finding Child a play date. Child is interested in art and playing the viola.
Factor four weighs in favor of Father.
5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
Mother is currently pregnant and scheduled for a C-section on December 24, 2019. Mother presently sees a therapist for help with anxiety and depression. As listed in the police report, Mother has a history of suicidal thoughts and thoughts of harming Child. To date, Mother is doing well in her therapy with Ms. Davis. The Court encourages Mother to continue progressing on her mental health.
Father is diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. Father has no mental health concerns.
The Child is physically healthy but has mental health challenges that emerge after contact with Mother.
Factor five slightly favors Father.
6. Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to the child under §701 of this title;
According to testimony by both parties, Father was not present in Child's life for several years. There is a dispute whether Father chose this absence or whether Mother was hiding Child from Father. However, the testimony that Father had to hire an investigator to find Mother and Child was unrebutted. Since Child was placed with Father in 2018, Father has taken good care of Child. Child is up to date on all medical and dental appointments.
Factor six slightly favors Father.
7. Evidence of domestic violence as provided in Chapter 7A of Title 13;
Both parties testified that there is no domestic violence between them and no domestic violence with any of the residents in their respective homes.
Factor seven is neutral.
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.
Mother has been convicted of four felony charges and five misdemeanor charges. Mother was incarcerated for thirty-days in 2018 for a violation of probation charge. Mother has not incurred any criminal charges since her release in 2018.
Father nor any adult living in his home have a criminal history that would cause concern for the Court.
Factor eight weighs in favor of Father.
CONCLUSION- CUSTODY MODIFCATION
In determining custody, no single factor is determinate. Rather, the Court must weigh the totality of the circumstances and reach a decision that will best serve the child. From the evidence presented at the hearing on December 16, 2019, the Court finds that factors 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 favor Father. The remaining two factors are neutral. Ordinarily, the Court would award sole custody in a case where six of eight factors favor a parent. However, in this circumstance where the major difference results from differences in parenting styles, the Court orders that the parties shall have JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY of Child with Father having the ability to make the final decisions on school and medical care. This award will protect Mother by ensuring that all decisions are made in full consultation with Mother. Similarly, awarding Father the ability to make the final decision on school and medical care, the risk to the Child will be reduced. As joint custodians, the parties must discuss all of the major decisions in the child's life before reaching a decision. These decisions include but are not limited to the child's support, care, nurture, welfare, and education.
See 13. Del. C. §701.
The Child shall continue working with Ms. Megan White on reunification. Ms. White was more credible than Ms. D and Ms. White has substantially more experience with the Child's history and needs. The Court agrees that Mother needs to address her individual issues with her own counselor. To the extent that the parties are unwilling to grant access to information, the Court orders that both counselor shall be permitted to share information on the Child's progress and Mother's progress individually and with the Child. Once Mother has addressed the issues satisfactorily, she may file to modify visitation to provide more contact with the Child.
Father shall have primary placement of the Child. Mother's overnight visitation is suspended until Ms. White has recommended that a schedule may be implemented. Mother shall have contact with the Child by telephone without limitation. Mother needs to understand that the Child may be reticent to engage in conversation with Mother. Father shall encourage the Child to communicate with Mother and may "push" slightly beyond the Child's comfort level to encourage healing. Father may rely on the recommendations of Ms. White with respect to communications.
Mother shall be able to have custodial time with the Child in Delaware but must return the Child to Father at the end of the day. The schedule for Mother's contact shall be addressed in reunification counseling with the Child and Ms. White.
Either party shall have the ability to file a petition to modify visitation if they do not believe that Ms. White has fully comprehended Mother's progress. The Court will hear the petition promptly and address visitation expediently.
Both parties have significant work to accomplish. Father must become accustomed to sharing information with Mother and requesting her position on decisions to be made. This will be a difficult change for Father but the Court is confident that he is up to the task. Mother must step back from her initial reactions, take a position less reliant on her own personal childhood experiences, and consider the Child's perspective above her own desires. Mother's statement of knowing what the Child wants cannot be based on a "mother's intuition" or how things worked for her family. Rather, Mother needs to think about how her statements and actions will be perceived by the Child. Mother should discuss these issues with Ms. Davis and, if necessary, with Ms. White.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Modification of the custody provisions and primary placement are subject to the restrictions set forth in 13 Del.C. §729(c).
PETITIONS RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
Case No. 18-26353
Mother stipulated and acknowledged that she owes Father for past attorney's fees as ordered on July 17, 2019. The Court Orders Mother is to pay Father $2,085.00 within ninety (90) days of this Order.
Case No. 19-13609
The Interim Stipulation and Order on Petition- Rule to Show Cause (17-33823) provides that "both parties acknowledge his or her obligation to keep the other party reasonably informed and updated as to Child's education, healthcare (including counseling), religion, extra-circular activities and/or any other events or occurrences in her life which a reasonable parent would expect to be informed. Any communication between the parties shall be via e-mail and shall be limited to matters pertaining to Child."
Dkt. #156.
In her Petition Rule to Show Cause, Mother alleges that Father "wholly and completely failed to inform [Mother] of anything concerning Child since entry of the 1/7/19 Order despite at least six (6) written requests from [Mother] that he do so."
Dkt. #162.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE PETITIONS
The purpose of a civil contempt is to coerce compliance with a court order and to remediate damages caused by the failure to comply. In order to bring the coercive power to bear on a respondent, three criteria must be met: (1) a valid order must be in existence; (2) the alleged contemnor must have had the ability to abide by the order; and (3) the alleged contemnor must have disobeyed the order. The burden of proof in applying these criteria originates with the petitioner showing by clear and convincing evidence that a violation of a court order has occurred.
See Delaware State Bar Ass'n v. Alexander, 386 A.2d 652, 665 (Del. 1978).
Watson v. Givens, 758 A.2d 510, 512 (Del. Fam. Ct. 1999).
Id.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Mother presented six e-mails spanning from December 20, 2018 until March 21, 2019 asking Father for Child's appointment dates with Ms. White and for school and medical records. However, Mother testified that she does have access to Child's school records online and is able to see her grades and absences. Additionally, the testimony provides Mother is aware of Child's primary care doctor and when her most recent physical was scheduled. The Court does not find Mother proved by clear and convincing evidence that Father intentionally disobeyed the Interim Stipulation and Order.
Mother's Exhibit 2. --------
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Parties shall have JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY of Child (born / /2009) with Father having the final decision on all medical and school issues after consulting with Mother.
2. Father shall have PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT of the Child.
3. Mother's overnight visitation is suspended until Ms. White has recommended that a schedule may be implemented. Father may rely on the recommendations of Ms. White with respect to communications.
4. Mother shall be able to have custodial time with the Child in Delaware but must return the Child to Father at the end of the day. The schedule for Mother's contact shall be addressed in reunification counseling with the Child and Ms. White.IT IS SO ORDERED this 23th day of December 2019.
5. Either party shall have the ability to file a petition to modify visitation if they do not believe that Ms. White has fully comprehended Mother's progress and the Court will hear the petition promptly.
6. M D shall reimburse J D $2,085.00 for Attorney's Fees within ninety (90) days of this Order.
7. M D 's Petition Rule to Show Cause 19-13609 is DISMISSED.
/s/Michael W . Arrington
Honorable Michael W. Arrington
Judge Date of Written Order: December 23, 2019
Date E-Mailed to Counsel: December 23, 2019 cc: Michael S. Corrigan, Esquire,
Amanda L. H. Brinton, Esquire