Sukel v. Eisel

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: April 21, 2020
• Docket: 158, 2019
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

OWEN SUKEL 1, § § No. 158, 2019 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § § v. § Court Below: Family Court § of the State of Delaware JOY EISEL, § § File No. CK18-03019 Petitioner Below, § Petition No. 18-35668 Appellee. §

Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: April 21, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we

find it evident that the judgment of the Family Court should be affirmed on the basis

of and for the reasons assigned in the Family Court’s well-reasoned March 14, 2019

order, which affirmed the Commissioner’s order granting the appellee’s petition for

a protection from abuse order. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). accepting the Commissioner’s order, 2 and the appellant’s allegation of bias on the

part of either the Family Court or the Commissioner is not supported by the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice

2 See King v. Booker, 2015 WL 4985367, at *2 (“If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.”).