Opinion
File No.: CK13-03022 Petition No: 13-34985
03-13-2017
RE: S------- D----------- v. D----- F---------
Renee Duvall, Esq.
Gonser and Gonser, P.A.
1044 South State Street
Dover, DE 19901 Mitchell W. May, Esq.
May & Perza, P.A.
34 The Green
Dover, DE 19901 LETTER, DECISION AND ORDER Petition for Custody Dear Counsel:
Before the Court is a Petition for Custody (hereinafter "Petition") filed on November 8, 2013 by S------- D----------- (hereinafter "Mother"), represented by Renee Duvall, Esq., against D----- F--------(hereinafter "Father"), represented by Mitchell W. May, Esq., in the interest of their minor child, H---- L- F--------born March 8, 2013 (hereinafter "Child"). During the hearing, Mother requested that she be afforded primary residential placement with Father receiving visitation on alternating weekends. During the hearing, Father requested primary residential placement and to relocate with the Child to Pennsylvania, with Mother receiving visitation on alternating weekends. On January 26, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the merits in which testimony was presented by Mother, Father, K----- R---, S-------- D----, C---- F--------, and H------ R----.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother filed the herein Petition for Custody on November 8, 2013, along with a Motion for Emergency Ex Parte Order. On November 14, 2013, a Temporary Contact Order was entered affording Mother residential placement with Father having visitation on weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. On November 15, 2013, Mother filed a Motion to postpone the beginning of the Contact Order, asserting that the Child was sick and should remain with Mother. By Order dated December 12, 2013, the Court denied Mother's Motion. On March 10, 2014, the parties engaged in mediation and entered into a Temporary Consent order affording Mother primary residential placement with Father having visitation on the third week of every month for seven (7) consecutive days and the first weekend of every month.
On or about November 5, 2014, the Court scheduled the underlying Petition for Custody for a hearing on February 5, 2015. On February 3, 2015, Mother filed a Motion for a Continuance, requesting that the herein matter be continued because her attorney at that time was unavailable, which the Court granted. On March 17, 2015, Father filed a Motion for Default Judgment, alleging that Mother had failed to retain an attorney and requesting shared placement of the Child with Mother and Father. On March 20, 2015, Mother filed an Answer to Father's Motion, affirming the continued validity of her then-attorney's scheduling issues and denying that shared placement was in the Child's best interests.
On May 11, 2015, the Court entered an Interim Order, affording the parties shared residential placement on a week on/ week off basis. On May 12, 2015, Mother filed a Motion requesting that Father's visitation be stayed, along with a Motion for Emergency Ex Parte Order, asserting Father failed to properly engage the Child in speech therapy and alleging that Father was facing pending drug charges. That same day, the Court denied Mother's Motion for Emergency Ex Parte Order, but referred the herein case to the Division of Family Services for an investigation. On September 14, 2015, the Court entered an Order following a hearing on August 24, 2015, again directing the Division of Family Services to initiate an investigation, which had not yet occurred due to administrative issues. The Court rescheduled the hearing for November 5, 2015.
On November 5, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the herein Petition, in which Father failed to appear. On November 5, 2015, immediately following the hearing, the Court entered a Default Order affording the parties joint legal custody with Mother having primary residential placement and visitation with Father as agreed upon by the parties. On February 8, 2016, Father filed a Petition to Modify a Custody Order, alleging that he missed the hearing on November 5, 2015 due to confusion with his former attorney's staff. Father also filed a Motion for Emergency Ex Parte Order, alleging that a continued shared placement between Mother and Father was in the best interest of the Child. On February 10, 2016, the Court issued an Order denying Father's Motion for Emergency Ex Parte Order but finding that Father's Petition to Modify the Custody Order shall be treated sua sponte as a Motion to Re-Open the prior custody proceedings. On March 11, 2016, Mother filed an Answer to Father's Motion to Re- Open, stating no opposition to Father's Petition being treated as a Motion to Re-Open the herein proceedings but requesting that primary residential placement of the Child remain with Mother. On March 31, 2016, the Court entered an Order directing that the November 5, 2015 Order affording Mother primary residential placement remained in effect and ordering the herein matter be scheduled for mediation.
On May 26, 2016, Mother filed a Motion for NCIC check, alleging that Father possessed an extensive criminal history in Pennsylvania which would be relevant to the Court's consideration of the custody proceedings. On June 8, 2016, Father filed an Answer to Mother's Motion for NCIC check, wherein he asserted that it was overly burdensome to require him to take time off work to be fingerprinted given his criminal history was already in the record.
On July 12, 2016, the Court informed the parties that the hearing scheduled for July 18, 2016, was to be rescheduled. The herein matter was subsequently rescheduled to January 26, 2017, where the Court considered Mother's original Petition for Custody filed on November 8, 2013 based on Father's Motion to Re-Open filed on February 8, 2016. At the conclusion of the hearing, Father submitted his fingerprints for the NCIC check.
DISCUSSION
For the sake of judicial economy, the Court will not repeat in detail all of the testimony that can be obtained from the record, but will note the salient testimony as it pertains to the required statutory analysis. The Court has not previously entered a final order on the custodial, residential, and visitation arrangements for the Child. Therefore, in making its determination the Court must consider the best interests of the child guided by an analysis of the factors under 13 Del. C. § 722.
13 Del. C. § 722(a) provides: 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 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(s) 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 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.
Best Interest Factors
(1) The wishes of the child's parents as to her custody and residential arrangements;
Mother seeks primary residential placement with the Child, with Father having visitation every other weekend. Mother asserts that Father is unable to meet the Child's unique needs appropriately and that it is in the Child's best interests that she be afforded primary residential placement. Mother asserts that the Child has unique special needs and that Father's history of drug abuse and criminal background inhibit his ability to provide the Child the structure she needs.
Conversely, Father desires primary residential placement with the Child and visitation with Mother every other weekend. Since the filing of Mother's original Petition, Father has moved from Delaware to Pennsylvania. Father asserts that he is able to provide the Child the structure she needs due to the assistance of his family members, who live in close proximity. Father also asserts that he has remained substantially sober since 2014 and is fully capable of caring for the Child in his home.
The Court finds that this factor is neutral with regard to the Court's analysis as to the Child's primary residential placement. The parties are each opposed to the other's position on this factor, and both parents are actively engaged in the Child's lives.
(2) The wishes of the child as to her custodians and residential arrangements;
The Child is almost four (4) years old and given her tender age, the Court did not conduct an interview with the Child. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor is inapplicable to the Court's analysis as to the Child's residential placement. (3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with her parents , grandparents , siblings , person 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;
Mother testified that she and the Child have a loving relationship and that she is diligent in ensuring the Child's needs are met. Mother also stated that she has four (4) other children, ages twenty-two (22), twenty-one (21), twelve (12), and eleven (11). Her two (2) youngest sons live with her, as well as her aunt, E--- D----. Mother testified that the Child gets along well with her siblings and that her "Aunt E---" helps watch the Child while Mother is at work. Mother testified that "Aunt E---" and the Child possess a loving relationship.
Father also testified that he and Child have a loving relationship. Father stated that he and the Child get along well together and enjoy going to the park and playing games together. Father has no other children, but lives close to his extended family and resides with his paramour, M---- S-----. Father testified that the Child and Ms. S----- get along very well and that Ms. S----- sometimes watches the Child while Father is at work. Father also testified that the Child is very close to his parents, as well as to his sisters.
The Court heard testimony from C---- F--------(hereinafter "Paternal Grandmother"). Paternal Grandmother testified that she resides within five (5) miles of Father's home. Paternal Grandmother also testified that Father's three (3) sisters, also live within ten (10) miles of Father's home. The Child also has six (6) cousins. Paternal Grandmother noted that the Child is quiet and happy, but more talkative when other children are nearby. Paternal Grandmother testified that she and the Child have a good relationship and that they read and play together. The Court also heard testimony from H------ R---- (hereinafter "Paternal Aunt"). Paternal Aunt stated that her daughter C------ and the Child are very close and enjoy being together.
The Court finds that the Child has a good relationship with both Mother and Father. The Court also finds that both Mother and Father possess a strong support system from extended relatives who are closely bonded to the Child. Therefore, this factor is equally positive for each parent and thus favors a shared residential placement schedule. (4) The child's adjustment to her home , school and community;
Mother testified that she lives in a single-family home in Dover, DE. The home has three (3) bedrooms; Mother testified that her two (2) sons share a room, "Aunt E---" and the Child share a room, and Mother has her own room. Mother testified that the Child is happy in her home and that "Aunt E---" assists Mother in watching the Child while Mother is at work. The Court finds that the Child is well-adjusted to Mother's home.
Father testified that he lives in Sladington, PA, within ten (10) miles of his family and approximately three (3) hours away from Mother. Father stated that he lives in a two (2) bedroom home and that he shared a yard with his neighbors, who also have a four (4) year old daughter. Father testified that he lives alone and that the Child has her own room at his house; however, Father later admitted that his girlfriend, Megan S-----, had moved in with him in July of 2016. Father stated that Ms. S----- assists with watching the Child while Father was at work. The Court finds that the Child is well-adjusted to Father's home.
Extensive testimony was presented regarding the Child's numerous daycares and therapists. Testimony from the parties indicated that the Child's daycare had changed multiple times. Mother and Father testified that the other parent refused to provide the other parent with information regarding the Child's daycare and that significant confusion existed due to the Child changing daycares multiple times and attending daycare in both Pennsylvania and Delaware. Until 2015, the Child changed daycares multiple times while in Mother's care, often only staying for a few weeks at a time. Mother testified that this was due to financial difficulties and the inability of the staff to meet the Child's unique needs.
In 2015, the parties began a week on/ week off schedule. The Child attended daycare at the Montessori County Day School in Dover while in Mother's care and at the ABC Daycare in Walnutport, PA while in Father's care. Mother testified that Father did not participate in the Child's daycare in Dover and that Mother was unable to contact the Child's daycare in PA.
Thereafter, in November of 2015, the Court issued the Default Order awarding Mother primary residential placement with Father having the Child every other weekend. In September of 2015, the Child began attending school daily at the Bush Early Education Center, a pre-school within the Brandywine School District in Delaware. The Child also receives group speech therapy from Bush and has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Although the Child was also attending "Tutor Time," Mother testified that the Child stopped attending due to financial concerns. Mother testified that the staff at Bush is fully capable of meeting the Child's needs. The Child's IEP from Bush also reflects multiple services in place to assist the Child in meeting her developmental goals (Petitioner's Exhibit #3).
The Court finds that the Child is relatively adjusted to both Mother's and Father's homes. However, the record reflects Child is receiving consistent services from her current school in DE, to which she is well-adjusted. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors granting Mother primary residential placement.
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
No significant concerns were presented with regard to Mother's mental and physical health. The record reflects that Father has a history of substance abuse and experienced a relapse in September of 2014. With respect to the Child, extensive testimony was presented with regard to her special needs. The record reflects that the Child possesses developmental delays in her speech and cognition.
The parties presented testimony regarding their differing perspectives and methods of addressing the Child's developmental delays. In April of 2014, Mother learned that Father had asked for sixteen (16) month evaluation from the Child's pediatrician, Dr. Barnes, due to concerns from the daycare in PA that the Child was not eating table food or drinking from a cup, as well as concerns with delays in her speech. Father had failed to inform Mother about these concerns. Subsequently the Child was referred to Al DuPont, where she was not evaluated until May of 2015. Mother testified that she did not feel the Child's delays were concerning enough to warrant further evaluation and that none of the Child's teachers in DE had expressed concern. However, Father had a subsequent evaluation performed in March of 2015 in PA and enrolled the Child in occupational therapy and speech therapy. However, Mother only learned about these services in May of 2015 during a Court hearing. Subsequently, Mother enrolled the Child in speech services in July of 2015 and Al DuPont evaluated the Child in August of 2015. In September of 2015, the Child began services at the direction of Child Watch.
In November of 2015, Mother was awarded primary residential placement of the Child by default. Mother testified that once this schedule began the Child's speech "took off;" however, Child Watch also determined that the Child was still developmentally delayed. The Child is currently receiving services through the Bush Early Education Center in DE.
The Court finds that the Child requires specialized services and support to meet her unique challenges. The Court finds the record reflects that each parent has demonstrated the ability to address the Child's challenges in their respective communities. However, given the significant need for structure, routine, and consistency the Court finds the primary focus must be directed as to what is in the best interest of the Child. The record reflects the Child is currently receiving services in Mother's care that are specially suited to her needs in an environment to which she is well-adjusted. Based upon the record, the Court finds this factor favors primary placement with Mother.
(6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to the child under §701 of this title;
Pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 701, parents are responsible for the support, care, nurture, welfare, and education of their child. The Court finds that both parents have fulfilled their responsibility for the support, care, nurture, welfare, and education of their Child. The record is void of any credible evidence that either parent is not an involved or active parent with regard to the care of the Child.
Mother testified that from April 2012 to November of 2013, Mother and Father resided together in Dover, DE. Mother testified that although both Mother and Father cared for the Child together, Mother took more time off work to care for the Child. However, in November of 2013, Mother testified that Father moved out of their home and took the Child to Pennsylvania. Mother testified that Father moved because his involvement in drug activities, prompting her to file the Emergency Ex Parte Motion in November of 2013. However, the Court denied the Emergency Ex Parte Motion and afforded Father visitation with the Child on the weekends.
The Court heard testimony from K----- R---, a social worker from the Division of Family Services (DFS) in Delaware. Ms. R--- testified that this family's case had been referred to DFS by the previously assigned Judge in October of 2015. Subsequently, DFS contacted Northampton County, PA to perform the investigation in Father's home, as Father was residing in Pennsylvania. Northampton Child Protective Services (CPS) reported that on September 13, 2014, Father was arrested for using cocaine and that he possessed a past history of drug use; however, Northampton noted that Father had been sober for five (5) years prior to the 2014 arrest. Northampton also reported that Father had prior convictions for Driving Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (DUI), Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Possession of a Controlled Substance. However, DFS reported that Father completed a drug and alcohol evaluation and that outpatient counseling was recommended. Additionally, PA CPS reported that Father's home was appropriate and that the Child was well cared for in Father's home.
At the time of the DFS investigation, the Child was receiving speech therapy services from Easter Seals in Delaware through her speech therapist, J--- M-------, while in daycare. However, DFS noted that the Child's therapy was inconsistent due to the Child's sporadic attendance. DFS noted no concerns with the Child in Mother's care, but encouraged Mother to be more consistent with the Child's attendance at daycare in order for the Child to receive the necessary therapy. DFS closed their case on November 9, 2015.
Mother testified that she currently works part-time for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. Mother testified her employment with the IRS may be in jeopardy due to scheduling issues and that her work schedule may change. Mother's "Aunt E---" assists her in caring for the Child while Mother is working.
Father testified that he has worked at Strohl Automotive Services as an Auto Technician since March of 2016. He works Monday to Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and every other Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Father testified that his paramour Ms. S----- assists Father with watching the Child while he is working. Mother testified that Father has been ordered to pay child support in the amount of $132 every two weeks, but that he is not current on those payments. Mother also testified that Father owed a balance of $1,500 in arrears.
Both parties presented testimony regarding concerns while in the other parties' care. For example, Mother testified concerns about statements the Child expressed after being in Father's care. Mother testified that the Child would spontaneously say the "N" word. The Child is biracial; Mother is African-American and Father is Caucasian. When Mother asked the Child where she heard that offensive word, Mother testified that the Child said "Miss C-----," who Father stated was from the daycare in PA. However, Father disputed that the Child was able to comprehend Mother's question of "where she heard that word." Mother also expressed concern over Father's history of drug abuse and criminal background.
On the other hand, Paternal Grandmother testified as to her concerns regarding the Child being in Mother's care. Paternal Grandmother stated that in the winter of 2015, the Child had "brown drainage" in her ears and Father took the Child to the emergency room. The hospital prescribed eardrops and medication. Paternal Grandmother also stated that the Child had stomach aches and hard stools in the fall of 2016, but this issue has been resolved. Paternal Grandmother further noted that the Child was not yet fully potty trained. Paternal Grandmother stated that she believed the Child was progressing better in a shared placement schedule. Finally, Paternal Grandmother noted that in Father's care, the Child maintained the same therapist and daycare, whereas in Mother's care the Child's daycare and therapist changed frequently.
Paternal Aunt echoed some of Paternal Grandmother's concerns, stating that in June of 2016 the Child expressed fear about taking a bath, which was unusual. She also stated that the Child was unable to answer questions except for "yes" or "no." Father also testified that he believed the Child was regressing in Mother's care. Father noted that although he attempts to coordinate with Mother and the Child's therapist, this was difficult due to the number of times Mother has changed the Child's therapist and daycare providers. Father testified that stability was important for the Child given her developmental delays and noted that he had maintained the same therapist and daycare since relocating to PA. Father also noted that Mother had struggled with stability with her other children, stating that two (2) of her children did not graduate high school until they were twenty (20).
The Court finds that Father's concerns as to Mother's stability regarding her other children are unfounded. The record reflects that Mother's two minor (2) children are enrolled at The Pilot School and Cab Calloway School for the Arts, both of which are exceptional schools where obtaining admission is highly competitive. The Court recognizes that a parent must be diligent and dedicated to their Child's best interests in order to assist his or her Child in obtaining admission to either of those schools. Rather than demonstrating a lack of stability, therefore, the record reflects that Mother's two (2) other school-age children are in stable, appropriate educational environments suited to their abilities, talents, and needs.
The parties also expressed concern over the other parents' lack of communication regarding issues with the Child. Father testified he was frustrated with Mother's lack of communication. For example, in 2015, Mother changed the Child's pediatrician. Although Mother testified that she informed Father of this change, Mother sent a texted message to Father on the day the Child's appointment was scheduled. On the other hand, Mother testified that Father had failed to inform her about the original daycare report relaying concerns over the Child's developmental delays.
The Court finds that the above issues largely indicate the parties' ongoing communication problem, rather than a lack of fulfillment of their respective parental duties. Additionally, both parents perceive the other's actions in a negative light with no benefit of doubt. After analyzing the testimony, the Court finds that both parents have fulfilled their respective rights and responsibilities to the Child. The issues brought up in the hearing reflect the parties' continued problems with communicating with each other, rather than a lack of fulfillment of parental responsibility of either party. Indeed, neither Mother nor Father presented any evidence that the other parent lacks appropriate parenting skills or has in any way conducted themselves in any manner other than that of a loving, nurturing parent. The difficulty lies in Mother and Father's relationship with each other, not with their Child. Therefore, the Court finds that while the parents struggle with communication, the record supports maintaining a shared residential placement is in the best interest of the Child.
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and
Pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 706A(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 visitation arrangements for the child in accordance with the best interests of Children. Domestic violence is defined by 13 Del. C. § 703A(a), as including, but not limited to, physical or sexual abuse or threats of physical or sexual abuse and any other offense against the person.
The record was void as to any evidence regarding domestic violence between the parties. Therefore, this factor is inapplicable to the Court's analysis.
(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.
The Court finds no criminal record of any import for Mother. However, extensive testimony was presented regarding Father's criminal history in PA. The Court also granted Mother's request for an NCIC check and the Family Court in Kent County received the NCIC on March 7, 2017. The NCIC reflects that Father has prior convictions for: 1) Theft, a misdemeanor, in 2010, for which he was convicted; 2) Driving Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (DUI), in 2014, for which his sentence was deferred; and, 3) Possession of a Controlled Substance, in 2014, for which his sentence was deferred. The NCIC also notes numerous other charges, for which Father was not convicted. Finally, the record reflects that Father has a history of cocaine use and has relapsed twice, which the Court finds extremely concerning. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors granting Mother's request for primary residential placement.
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Title 13 Del. C. § 701, Mother and Father are the joint, natural guardians of their minor Child and are equally charged with each Child's support, care, nurture, welfare, and education. After considering all relevant factors, the Court finds that it is in the best interest for Mother and Father to have joint legal custody over the Child. The record is devoid as to any substantial evidence that Mother or Father is not an active parent. Accordingly, both parents shall be afforded the same decision making authority as to the Child's education, medical issues, and fundamental decisions that concern the Child's welfare and well-being. Parents will need to work to communicate more effectively with each other to reach joint decision making for the benefit of their Child.
The Court finds that factors one (1), two (2), and seven (7) were neutral or inapplicable to the Court's analysis, whereas factors three (3), and six (6) favor a shared residential placement. However, factors four (4), five (5), and eight (8) favor granting Mother's request for primary residential placement.
The parties noted that the Child begins school in the fall of 2018. Additionally, both Mother and Father state that the Child needs stability in order for her to progress. The Court also finds that due to the Child's processing, cognitive, and speech concerns, she should receive therapeutic and educational services from one school, rather than two (2) schools in two (2) different states. Therefore, the Court finds that a shared placement is not appropriate in this case due to the geographical distance between Mother and Father.
The Court finds that Mother shall be afforded primary residential placement. The Child is currently receiving exceptional services through her current school in DE, where she has an IEP. The Court also finds that the record reflects that Father's concerns about Mother's instability are unfounded. Finally, although the Court finds that Mother and Father are both active, involved, and loving parents, the Court is concerned about Father's criminal history and prior drug abuse. Therefore, the Court finds that Mother shall be afforded primary residential placement, with Father having extensive weekend visitation three (3) weekends of the month.
The Court finds that the parties have substantial difficulty communicating, which inhibits their ability to appropriately co-parent their Child as is in her best interests. The record is devoid as to any indication that either parent is not devoted to the Child. Accordingly, the Court encourages the parties to view the other parent in a positive light in order to seek outcomes that are best for their Child and effectuate the other parent's bond with the Child, all of which is crucial to her continued success and development.
The Court reminds the parties that each parent is entitled by statute to have reasonable access to Child by telephone, mail, and other means of communication and to receive all material information concerning Child, regardless of the custodial or residential arrangement. Additionally, each party shall foster a feeling of affection and respect between Child and the other parent. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Mother, S------- D-----------, and Father, D----- F--------, shall have joint legal custody of the Child, H---- L- F--------born March 8, 2013. Mother shall have primary residential placement of the Child. 2. Father's Visitation : Father shall be afforded visitation the first, second, and fourth weekends of the month, from Friday at the end of the school day to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. Mother shall have the Child on the third weekend of the month as well as any time there is a fifth weekend of the month. 3. Summer Visitation : The parties shall share summer visitation on a week on/ week off schedule with exchanges to occur on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. unless modified by mutual agreement of the parties in writing. However, if the Child is required to continue educational or therapeutic services, this schedule must be modified to accommodate compliance with the support services required. 4. Transportation: Pick-up and drop-off shall occur at the Child's school. 5. Parental Communication: The parties shall communicate directly with one another regarding the well-being of the Child, whether by telephone, text, or email. Furthermore, each parent shall advise the other parent of Child's health and welfare, including the date, time, and location of any medical appointments, which both parents may attend. Mother shall notify Father of the Child's medical, school, and other appointments within (15) days of the appointment or immediately after scheduling the appointment, whichever is sooner. 6. Telephone Access: All parties shall have telephone access with the Child. Additionally, each party shall be entitled to frequent telephone and electronic communication with the Child when in the care of the other parent. 7. Holidays : Mother shall have the Child on the holidays in Column 1 in odd-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in the even-numbered years. Father shall have the Child on the holidays in Column 1 in the even-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in odd- numbered years:
See 13 Del. C. § 727(a): Whether the parents have joint legal custody or 1 parent has sole legal custody of a child, each parent has the right to receive, on request, from the other parent, whenever practicable in advance, all material information concerning the child's progress in school, medical treatment, significant developments in the child's life, and school activities and conferences, special religious events and other activities in which parents may wish to participate and each parent and child has a right to reasonable access to the other by telephone or mail. The Court shall not restrict the rights of a child or a parent under this subsection unless it finds, after a hearing, that the exercise of such rights would endanger a child's physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development. --------
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| Easter or other religious | Memorial Day |
| holidays | Labor Day |
| Fourth of July | Thanksgiving Day |
| Halloween | Christmas Eve |
| Christmas Day |
With the exception of Christmas and Halloween contact, holiday contact shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. the day of the holiday. Halloween contact shall begin at 5:00 p.m. and end at 9:00 p.m. on Halloween. Christmas Eve contact shall begin at 6:00 p.m. on December 24th and end at noon on December 25th. Christmas Day contact shall begin at noon on December 25th and end at 6:00 p.m. on December 26th.8. Mother's/Father's Day : On Mother's Day and Father's Day, no matter whose turn for contact, the Child shall be with the parent whose holiday is being celebrated from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m.. 9. The parties may modify the visitation/holiday schedule by mutual agreement in writing.
IT IS SO ORDERED. March 13, 2017
Date
/s/ _________
ARLENE MINUS COPPADGE, JUDGE Date Mailed to Petitioner(s): __________
Date Mailed to Respondent(s): __________ AMC/cap