Opinion
No. 527, 2001.
Decided: March 19, 2002.
Court Below-Family Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County File No. CK01-03138 Petition No. 01-06464.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
MILTON PARSON,[1] Petitioner/Cross Respondent Below-Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE PARSON, Respondent/Cross Petitioner Below-Appellee. No. 527, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: February 8, 2002 Decided: March 19, 2002
The Court has assigned pseudonyms to the parties in this case. SUPR. CT. R. 7(d).
ORDER
This 19th day of March 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner-appellant, Milton Parson ("Father"), filed this appeal from the Family Court's September 24, 2001 order, which provided for primary residential placement of the parties' two minor children with Charlotte Parson ("Mother"). We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
While the Family Court's order contained a number of other rulings, this ruling was the only one from which an appeal was taken.
(2) The parties filed cross-petitions for custody of their two minor children, Christine, born August 9, 1991, and Mary, born December 17, 1992. The Family Court held a hearing on the parties' cross-petitions and, on September 24, 2001, issued its order awarding legal custody of the two minor children to Mother and Father jointly, with primary residential placement with Mother and visitation with Father.
(3) Our standard of review of a decision of the Family Court extends to a review of the facts and law, as well as inferences and deductions made by the trial judge. If the trial court has correctly applied the pertinent law, our review is limited to abuse of discretion. We will not substitute our opinion for the findings of the trial judge where those findings are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process. In a case such as this where residential placement is at issue, Delaware law requires the Family Court to render its decision in accordance with the child's best interests.
Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983).
Id.
(4) In his appeal, Father essentially requests this Court to re-weigh the "best interests of the child" factors and determine that the parties' children should have primary residential placement with him. He suggests that more weight should be accorded the fact that both children wish to reside with him.
In the alternative, Father asks that he have the children "for all breaks and all summer vacation", if residential placement remains with Mother.
Father did not provide a copy of the transcript of the trial to this Court. To the extent that Father's appeal is based upon any dispute of fact that would be revealed only by reviewing the transcript, we have no adequate basis for evaluating any such claims. To the extent that Father's appeal is based upon undisputed facts, we observe that the September 24, 2001 decision of the Family Court properly reviewed and considered all of the "best interests of the child" factors. The Family Court noted that the children expressed a preference for residing with Father, but attributed the preference to Father's more permissive parenting style. In the end, the Family Court decided that the children would reside primarily with Mother because she has "the more structured home." On the record before us, we can not conclude that the Family Court either abused its discretion or committed legal error in so deciding.
As the appellant, Father was required to provide this Court with the appropriate factual support for his arguments. SUPR. CT. R. 9(e) (ii) and 14(e).
Slater v. State, 606 A.2d 1334, 1336-37 (Del. 1992).
The Family Court based its custody decision on facts that appear to be largely undisputed between the parties.
Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d at 1279.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED.