IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
GARY I. STUART, JR.,1 §
§
Respondent Below- § No. 464, 2017
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Family Court
§ of the State of Delaware
OLIVIA STUART, §
§ File No. CK15-02155
Petitioner Below- § Petition No. 16-00075
Appellee. §
Submitted: June 8, 2018
Decided: August 1, 2018
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to
the Court that:
(1) In this appeal from a child custody order, the appellant, Gary I. Stuart,
Jr. (“Father”), contends that the Family Court judge was biased against Father, that
the judge violated Father’s constitutional rights by relying upon false testimony
presented by a psychologist who performed a custody evaluation, and that the judge
erred by considering evidence of a PFA against Father while he was still in the
process of challenging the PFA in the United States Supreme Court.
1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
(2) Our review of an appeal from a custody decision extends to both the
facts and the law, as well as to the inferences and deductions made by the Family
Court after considering the weight and credibility of the testimony. 2 To the extent
the Family Court’s decision implicates rulings of law, our review is de novo.3
Findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are found to be clearly erroneous
and justice requires that they be overturned.4 The judgment below will be affirmed
“when the inferences and deductions upon which [the decision] is based are
supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive
process.”5
(3) Under Delaware law, the Family Court is required to determine legal
custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the best interests
of the child.6 The October 9, 2017 order reflects that the Family Court carefully
reviewed all of the best interest factors under 13 Del. C. § 722. To the extent that
Father challenges the credibility of the witnesses and evidence upon which the
Family Court’s custody decision rested, we find no abuse of the Family Court’s
discretion. Father’s contention that the Family Court was biased against him
because it relied upon perjured testimony has no basis in fact. Under the
2
Devon v. Mundy, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006).
3
Id. (citing In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995)).
4
Id. (citing Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983)).
5
Id. at 752-53.
6
13 Del. C. § 722.
2
circumstances, we defer to the Family Court’s factual findings and its credibility
determinations. It is apparent from its opinion that the Family Court reviewed the
evidence, made factual findings, and applied the correct legal standard in
determining that it was in the children’s best interest that Mother should have
custody of the children.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice
3