Wilcox v. LaClaire, 11, 2021

Child C.R. born Sept. 17, 2011; Father has been incarcerated since C.R. was two and will remain so until 2028.
Mother stopped almost all Father–child contact in Sept. 2015; intermittent phone contact ended and Mother also conditioned grandparents’ visits on not discussing Father.
Family Court initially ordered limited phone/letter contact, then granted Mother an ex parte stay (Jan. 2017) and later an order (Apr. 2017) prohibiting Father’s contact; grandparents were similarly restricted.
This Court reversed a Family Court order terminating Father’s parental rights in Whitmore v. Robinson, instructing that the court not assign fault to Father for lack of contact after Aug. 2015 because Mother and the court had blocked contact.
Father filed a pro se petition (Feb. 2020) seeking limited contact by telephone, mail, and cards (no in‑person visits); Family Court denied the petition based largely on Mother’s lay testimony that contact would harm C.R. and on Father’s lack of an existing bond.
On appeal the Supreme Court reversed: Mother presented no expert or other substantial evidence that limited phone/mail contact would significantly impair C.R.’s emotional development, and the Family Court improperly relied on Father’s lack of post‑2015 contact (which this Court previously said could not be held against him).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Family Court properly denied Father reasonable access by telephone and mail under 13 Del. C. § 727(a) absent evidence that such contact would significantly impair the child’s emotional development	Whitmore: no evidence that limited phone/mail contact would significantly impair C.R.; Mother offered only speculative lay opinion	LaClaire: "forced" contact with a father the child does not know would disrupt C.R.’s stability and significantly impair emotional development	Reversed — Mother failed to meet her burden; record lacks substantial evidence or expert support that limited contact would significantly impair C.R.; remand for further proceedings and appropriate limited-contact orders
Whether the Family Court could rely on Father’s lack of an existing relationship with C.R. when that lack resulted from Mother’s and prior Family Court orders blocking contact	Whitmore: father should not be penalized for post‑Aug. 2015 lack of contact that Mother and the court created	LaClaire: prior instruction was limited to termination proceedings and is not controlling in visitation analysis	Reversed — this Court’s prior instruction applies; Father may not be faulted for absence of contact after Aug. 2015 and the Family Court erred to the extent it relied on that absence

Whitmore v. Robinson, 223 A.3d 417 (Del. 2019) (this Court’s prior decision involving the same parties, directing that lack of post‑Aug. 2015 contact not be held against Father)
Elizabeth A.S. v. Anthony M.S., 435 A.2d 721 (Del. 1981) (custodial parent bears burden to show visitation would endanger physical health or significantly impair emotional development)
Mann v. Green, 49 A.3d 1193 (Del. 2012) (standards of appellate review for Family Court findings)
Winter v. Charles, 608 A.2d 731 (Del. 1992) (incarceration alone does not automatically preclude visitation)
In re Jones, 528 A.2d 1113 (Del. 1987) (incarcerated parent may still have means to contact child and assist indirectly)