IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
LINDSEY NORDIN,1 §
§ No. 361, 2019
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No. CK12-02450
RICHARD OAKLEY, § Petition No. 19-03026
§
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: December 20, 2019
Decided: January 16, 2020
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we
conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Family
Court’s custody order docketed July 16, 2019. The Family Court order reflects that
the court carefully reviewed all of the factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722. The fact
that the appellant disagrees with the Family Court’s factual determinations is not a
basis for reversal. Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are
clearly erroneous, and when the determination of facts turns on a question of the
credibility of the witnesses appearing before the trial court, we will not substitute
1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
our opinion for that of the trier of fact.2 The appellant’s briefs also assert facts that
were not presented to the Family Court in the first instance, including circumstances
that arose after the Family Court’s decision. This Court will not consider evidence
that was not presented to the trial court in the first instance.3 To the extent that the
appellant believes that new events warrant a modification of the custody and
visitation arrangement ordered by the court, she must file a procedurally proper
petition to modify custody in the Family Court and support her claims with
appropriate evidence.4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
2
Shimel v. Shimel, 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).
3
See Price v. Boulden, 2014 WL 3566030, at *2 (Del. July 14, 2014) (“[T]his evidence was not
available to the Family Court in the first instance, is outside of the record on appeal, and cannot
properly be considered by this Court.”); Del. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphily, 703 A.2d 1202, 1206
(Del. 1997) (“It is a basic tenet of appellate practice that an appellate court reviews only matters
considered in the first instance by a trial court.”).
4
We note that the Family Court docket reflects that the appellant filed a petition for modification
of custody on August 27, 2019, which the Family Court dismissed on December 6, 2019, after the
petitioner failed to appear in court as scheduled.
2