Brown v. Branch
689, 2015
| Del. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- Parents (Father and Mother) share two children (b. 2000 and 2005). Family Court awarded Mother sole custody and primary placement in 2010 with Father supervised weekly visitation at a visitation center.
- April 25, 2014 order after a hearing reaffirmed Mother’s sole custody, finding Father had not rebutted the statutory presumption barring custody to a domestic-violence perpetrator; Father received supervised visitation.
- Father filed multiple petitions (modification, contempt, emergency relief) from 2014–2015; Family Court denied emergency relief and some contempt claims; guardian ad litem appointed March 2015.
- November 20, 2015 hearing: testimony from both parents, therapists for each child, school counselor, family members, friends; children told the court they were scared of Father and did not want visitation.
- Family Court denied Father’s petition to modify custody, granted Mother’s request to suspend visitation, and denied Father’s contempt petition; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Court erred in denying Father’s custody-modification petition given 2-year rule and domestic-violence presumption | Father argued he had changed circumstances and presented counseling evidence rebutting §705A presumption | Mother argued Father failed to produce documentation showing completion of required perpetrator-specific program; continuation of prior order was safe | Court affirmed: Father failed to rebut §705A presumption; continuation of prior order would not endanger children |
| Adequacy of guardian ad litem’s contact and use of Father’s medical release | Father claimed GAL didn’t meet him and didn’t use signed release to obtain medical records | GAL testified she spoke to Father by phone; burden to produce evidence rested with Father | Court found no merit: GAL had contacted Father; Father bore burden to produce medical evidence |
| Exclusion/admission of evidence (visitation log, DMV records, Survivors counseling letter) | Father argued the court excluded favorable visitation logs, DMV evidence, and counseling documents | Mother argued excluded items were hearsay or not offered; documentation for rebutting presumption was lacking | Court affirmed evidentiary rulings: logs/hearsay excluded for lack of witnesses; DMV paperwork not offered at hearing; counseling claims undocumented for statutory rebuttal |
| Weight/credibility of therapists’ testimony and children’s wishes | Father contended therapists lacked sufficient contact to diagnose; disputed claims of children’s fear | Mother and GAL relied on therapists’ testimony and children’s statements that visitation would harm them | Court affirmed deference to trial court’s credibility determinations; therapists’ testimony and children’s statements supported denial of visitation/modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750 (Del. 2006) (standard of appellate review: de novo for law; clear-error for facts)
- Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202 (Del. 1979) (trial court entitled to weigh inferences and credibility)
- Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185 (Del. 1991) (trial court decides weight and credibility of witness testimony)
- Div. of Family Servs. v. 741 A.2d 1016 (Del. 1999) (family-court evidentiary and discretionary considerations in custody matters)
- Rosemary E.R. v. Michael G.Q., 471 A.2d 995 (Del. 1984) (custody decisions subject to appellate deference)