Dixon v. Fields ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
    DAVID DIXON,1                                 §
    §   No. 68, 2022
    Respondent Below,                      §
    Appellant,                             §   Court Below—Family Court
    §   of the State of Delaware
    v.                                     §
    §   File No. CN14-02087
    EVERLY FIELDS,                                §   Petition No. 21-15364
    §
    Petitioner Below,                      §
    Appellee.                              §
    Submitted: July 22, 2022
    Decided: September 16, 2022
    Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices.
    ORDER
    (1)     After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on
    appeal, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the
    Family Court’s order dated February 3, 2022. The appellee (“Mother”) filed a
    petition in the Family Court seeking to modify the appellant’s (“Father”) visitation
    with the parties’ child, which had been established in an order dated September 30,
    2019, after a full hearing on the merits, and continued in an order dated February 23,
    2021, after a hearing on a petition to modify custody filed by Father.
    1
    The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
    (2)    As an initial matter, with the exception of some interim provisions that
    were designed to facilitate the restoration of Father’s contact with the child—and
    which have now expired—it appears that the effect of the order that is the subject of
    this appeal was to deny Mother’s petition to modify Father’s visitation and continue
    the preexisting custody and visitation order. Therefore, it is not apparent what relief
    Father would achieve from success in this appeal. Moreover, the fact that Father
    disagrees with the Family Court’s factual determinations is not a basis for reversal.
    Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.2
    To the extent that the Family Court’s determination of facts turned on the credibility
    of the witnesses at the hearing, we will not substitute our opinion for that of the
    Family Court.3 Finally, it appears that Father seeks to relitigate matters previously
    presented to the Family Court by obtaining discovery or submitting additional
    evidence. After ample notice to the parties, the Family Court held an evidentiary
    hearing at which Father appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the
    issues raised by Mother’s petition; he therefore has not established a basis for the
    relief he seeks.
    2
    Shimel v. Shimel, 
    2019 WL 2142066
    , at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).
    3
    
    Id.
    2
    NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
    Court is AFFIRMED.
    BY THE COURT:
    /s/ Gary T. Traynor
    Justice
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 68, 2022

Judges: Traynor J.

Filed Date: 9/16/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/19/2022