Worthington v. Bachman
499, 2016
| Del. | May 31, 2017Background
- Parents (Paige Worthington — Mother; Gavin E. Bachman — Father) share a three-year-old son; Father filed for custody on Sept. 18, 2015.
- Interim consent order gave joint custody with Father having two overnight visits weekly and every-other-weekend.
- Family Court held a custody hearing (June 29, 2016) and, by order dated Aug. 23, 2016, awarded joint custody with shared residential placement and denied Mother’s request to relocate to Florida.
- Mother moved for reargument (filed Sept. 2, 2016); Family Court denied reargument (Sept. 14, 2016). Mother appealed.
- Family Court found neither parent’s Section 722 factors strongly outweighed the other; relocation’s disadvantages to the Father–child relationship outweighed relocation benefits.
- Family Court’s order set holiday/break allocations but did not specify a daily/weekly residential or vacation schedule if parents cannot agree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Worthington) | Defendant's Argument (Bachman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint custody/shared residential placement is in the child's best interests | Mother argued relocation benefits, extended family and prior Florida residency favored her and that the Court misweighed credibility and evidence | Father argued shared custody preserves his relationship and relocation would harm his relationship with the child | Affirmed: joint custody/shared placement is in child's best interests; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Mother should be permitted to relocate child to Florida | Mother argued relocation would improve quality of life, she has family and work prospects in Florida, and could preserve contact with Father | Father argued relocation would negatively impact his relationship with the child and that feasibility of preserving the parent–child relationship was limited | Affirmed: Court properly denied relocation after weighing best-interest and relocation factors |
| Whether denial of the motion for reargument was erroneous | Mother contended Court overlooked/failed to properly analyze evidence and Model Relocation factors | Father maintained Court correctly applied law and weighed credibility | Affirmed: no error in denying reargument; Court applied correct standards |
| Whether Family Court must enter a daily/weekly residential and vacation schedule when parents cannot agree (13 Del. C. § 728(a)) | Mother argued the order failed to provide a required fallback daily/weekly residential and vacation schedule | Father relied on Court’s encouragement to the parties to create an agreed schedule and existing holiday allocations | Reversed in part and remanded: Court must enter a daily/weekly residential schedule and vacation schedule to apply if parents cannot agree |
Key Cases Cited
- Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750 (Del. 2006) (standards for appellate review of Family Court findings)
- Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202 (Del. 1979) (appellate deference when credibility determinations underlie factual findings)
- Clark v. Clark, 47 A.3d 513 (Del. 2012) (deference to Family Court where record supports best-interests determination)