Jefferson v. Jefferson

980 A.2d 410, 2008 WL 6742295
CourtDelaware Family Court
DecidedAugust 28, 2008
DocketCS04-01926
StatusPublished

This text of 980 A.2d 410 (Jefferson v. Jefferson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Delaware Family Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jefferson v. Jefferson, 980 A.2d 410, 2008 WL 6742295 (Del. Super. Ct. 2008).

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER-CUSTODY AND VISITATION

HENRIKSEN, J.

This is the Court’s Decision and Order on a petition to modify the custody and visitation petition filed by Father on May 14, 2008, seeking to modify the prior Custody and Visitation Consent Order entered into by the parties on February 23, 2007.

BACKGROUND

The parties were married August 23, 1997, separated May 07, 2004, and eventually divorced by decree dated May 02, 2005. Their daughter, Theresa, was almost 5 years old when they separated. Theresa is now nine. Both parties have sought Protection From Abuse orders against the other, but each Protection From Abuse request ended with the parties agreeing to withdraw their petitions.

On June 23, 2004, the parties entered into their first Permanent Consent Order regarding custody and visitation. They agreed upon joint custody, primary placement with Mother, and standard visitation to Father. Each party listed as their address at that time [redacted], Millsboro, Delaware 19966.

Around September 01, 2005, the Division of Family Services, through two of its workers, issued a letter expressing concerns about Mother. At that time the Division was supporting a custody application by Father. The Division’s supporting letter noted that Mother did not have stable housing for herself or the children. The letter stated that Mother was residing at her sister’s house, but it was reported that Mother was often not there, leaving her sister to care for the children. The letter also reported that Mother had a gambling problem and was often out very late at Dover Downs. The letter from DFS also expressed the concern that Mother was meeting many different men and exposing her children to the men while not really knowing them. DFS indicated that Mother was meeting men on the Internet. Although the Division workers had a scheduled meeting with Mother on August 31, 2005, Mother did not keep that appointment, because she was in New Jersey with a man she had recently met.

Just prior to the Division’s letter of September 01, 2005, Mother, at a support hearing, gave her address as [redacted], Milford, Delaware. On September 01, 2005, when Father filed his emergency petition backed by the Division of Family Services, he listed Mother’s address as [redacted], Dover, Delaware, but also included a question mark about the address. On the Commissioner’s Order dated September 01, 2005, which denied Father’s request for emergency ex parte relief, one of the clerks in this Court wrote that they *412 had contacted Father and informed him of the Commissioner’s ruling. The clerk also wrote that Father’s response was “this is freakin’ unbelievable — if you talk to the Commissioner tell her she is an ‘asshole’ ”. The next day, September 02, 2005, Father filed another • emergency application wherein he noted that the Kent County Family Court, in reference to Mother’s two other children, had granted emergency relief based upon a similar request. On this particular date, a different Commissioner of this Court, again denied Father’s request for emergency ex parte relief when the Commissioner indicated that the pleadings did not establish an imminent risk of harm.

On July 27, 2006, this Court held an interim hearing on Father’s original motion to modify custody, which he filed on September 01, 2005. At that time, the court conducted separate, private, and recorded interviews of Theresa’s then 15 year old half-sister, Janice Smith, and then 12 year old half-sister, Beth Smith, both of whom are Mother’s biological daughters, and the former step-children of Father. At this hearing and as reflected in the Order, the Court learned that Theresa had been sexually assaulted by a minor male who was a neighbor of Mother’s, namely, Johnny Donaldson.

Then 15 year old Janice recalled to the Court at the July 27, 2006 hearing that her mother had been talking to men on the Internet, but that she was not meeting them. She stated that her mother may have met one of the gentlemen she had met on the Internet. Janice informed the Court that her mother did not bring men home with her at night. Janice stated that she was not aware that her mother had any men in the house nor that her mother had intimate relations with any of these men when the children were also in the house. Janice also noted that her mother used to go to the slots when she and her step-father had money, but according to Janice, Mother had not gone to the slots very often in the past two years. Janice indicated that she had a good relationship with both her mother and her step-father, and that she often visited her step-father when Theresa visited him. Janice recalled that there had been a time when she, her siblings, and her mother were living with other relatives. She noted, however, since December 09, 2005, Mother and the children had resided in an apartment complex which Janice indicated presented suitable conditions.

At this same hearing on July 27, 2006, 12 year old Beth told the Court that the last time her mother went to the slots was about two months preceding the hearing. Beth also indicated that for about three months, Mother had been dating a gentleman named Trey. Both Beth and Theresa stated that their mother was normally home with the children in the evening.

When the parties next returned to the Court on February 23, 2007, they had reached an agreement. The parties’ agreement was entered as a Consent Order of the Court dated February 23, 2007. Pursuant to that agreement, the parties agreed to have joint custody, with primary placement with Mother. Father also obtained standard visitation guidelines, together with some additional time which is more specifically set forth in the Order itself. Of greatest interest for the hearing now before the Court, was the wording set forth in paragraph 7 of the parties’ Consent Order, which stated the following:

Although this is a Consent Agreement the parties have elected and agreed to treat this as an Order entered after a full hearing on the merits concerning the legal custody and/or primary residence of the child and, as such, is subject to *413 the two year modification rule set forth in Del.Code ANN. tit. 13, § 729(c). 1

Father’s first petition to modify the Consent Custody Order dated February 23, 2007, was filed on May 14, 2008, which is less than two years from the entry of the parties Order of February 23, 2007. By their agreement, the modification of their prior Order, which awards joint custody with primary placement to Mother, requires Father to prove that continuing the enforcement of the prior Order may endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair her emotional development.

FACTS

During the present hearing, in addition to considering the overall burden of proof that Father must meet of demonstrating endangerment to the child’s physical health or significant impairment of the child’s emotional development, the Court considered the various best interest factors set forth in Del.Code ANN. tit. 13, § 722. Father is seeking the primary placement of his daughter to be changed to him.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 722
Delaware § 722
§ 729
Delaware § 729(c)
§ 729
Delaware 13 § 729

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
980 A.2d 410, 2008 WL 6742295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jefferson-v-jefferson-delfamct-2008.