J.S. v. J.G.

IN THE FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
J---- S-----, )
)
Petitioner, ) File No. CN20-01084
) Case No. 25-22244
v. )
)
J------ G-----, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER ON PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY
AND MOTION FOR RELOCATION
Date Submitted: June 1, 2026
Date Decided: June 12, 2026
Jaycee H. DiNardo, Esquire, MacElree Harvey, Ltd., 5721 Kennett Pike, Centreville,
DE 19807, jdinardo@macelree.com, attorney for Petitioner
Seth L. Thompson, Esquire, Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A., 2961 Centerville
Road, Suite 310, Wilmington, DE 19808, sthompson@pgslegal.com, attorney for
Respondent
ARRINGTON, Judge.

2
The Court conducted a hearing on June 1, 2026, on the merits of a Petition for
Custody Modification in the interest of V------ K------- (born 4/11/19) (“Child”).
Present for the hearing were Petitioner J---- S----- (“Father”) and Respondent J------
G----- (“Mother”). Father appeared represented by Jaycee H. DiNardo, Esquire.
Mother appeared represented by Seth L. Thompson, Esquire. Based upon the
evidence presented, the Court GRANTS the Modification of Custody Order and
GRANTS Father’s request for relocation for the reasons set forth below.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Father filed a Petition for Custody on June 23, 2025.1 Mother answered the
Petition on July 16, 2025.2 Following a hearing on the merits, the Court, on August
19, 2025, issued a final order (“Current Order”) awarding the parties joint legal
custody with Father having primary residential placement and final decision making
authority after considering Mother’s views on the issue(s) to be decided.3
On October 7, 2025, Father filed the instant Petition to Modify the Current
Order and a Motion for an Emergency Ex Parte order.4 The Court granted Father’s
request for an ex parte order, and awarded him temporary sole legal custody and
primary residential placement of Child.5
1 Dkt. 23.
2 Dkt. 29.
3 Dkt. 31.
4 Dkt. 32, 34.
5 Dkt. 35.

3
The Court held a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on November 18,
2025. Father orally amended the Petition to include a request to relocate to South
Carolina. and clarified that he sought sole legal custody and primary residential
placement of Child.6 Trial was set for February 18, 2026.7
Mother filed a Motion for Continuance on February 3, 2026, and a Motion for
Bonding Assessment on February 5, 2026.8 Father responded to each of Mother’s
motions on February 11, 2026.9 The Court granted the Motions to allow Dr. Harris
Finkelstein to conduct the bonding assessment, and to prepare for trial prior to the
end of the school year.10 The Court held a second CMC on March 3, 2026, and set
trial for June 1, 2026.11 The parties stipulated to the admissibility of all trial exhibits.
JURISDICTION
The Custody Order was entered in Delaware. Delaware maintains exclusive
jurisdiction over modification of the Custody Order as parents and Child continue
to live in Delaware.12 This Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Petition
pursuant to 13 Del. C. § 1921(a).13
6 Dkt. 36-37, (unnumbered).
7 Dkt. 37.
8 Dkt. 42-44.
9 Dkt. 46-48.
10 Dkt. 45, 49-50.
11 Dkt. 51-52.
12 Dkt. 32-33.
13 “(a) Except as otherwise provided in § 1923 of this title, a court of this State which has made a
child custody determination consistent with § 1920 or § 1922 of this title has exclusive, continuing
jurisdiction over the determination until:

4
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court conducted a full hearing on the merits and issued a fifteen page,
single spaced opinion on August 19, 2025. The petition for modification was filed on
October 7, 2025. The facts set forth in the opinion, which was not appealed, are
established and incorporated by reference. The facts set forth below are the Court’s
findings of fact based upon credibility of the witnesses and relevance to the
modification petition and the request to relocate. A complete recitation of all
evidence is available in the record. Statements in quotation marks are paraphrases
or actual quotes from the testimony.
I. Facts through August 19, 2025.
The Court fully addressed most of the factual issues in the Current Order in
determining that Father should be the primary residential parent and have final
decision making authority. The August 19, 2025 custody order was not appealed and
became the final order on custody and residential placement. The instant Petition
to Modify Custody was filed forty-nine days later. The reasons set forth in the
Conclusion section of the August 19, 2025 custody order have compelling persuasive
effect on this decision, and bear repeating in full in this Order:
A court of this State determines that neither the child, nor the child and one parent, nor the child
and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this State and that substantial
evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and
personal relationships; or
A court of this State or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents and
any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this State.”

5
The Court’s primary concerns in this matter center on Ms. G-----’s
history of alcohol abuse and her demonstrated pattern of attempting
to exert control over Child’s relationship with Mr. S-----. The evidence
establishes that Ms. G----- suffers from alcoholism, with relapses
occurring approximately every nine to twelve months. These relapses
render her unable to care for Child, requiring Mr. S----- to assume sole
caregiving responsibilities for extended periods. While Ms. G----- has
participated in treatment programs (including a six month stay at the
Limen House which supports individuals battling substance use
disorder and mental health challenges) and experienced periods of
sobriety, her history demonstrates that such sobriety has not been
consistently maintained. This ongoing instability, combined with
multiple homes in a three-year period, creates uncertainty regarding
her ability to meet Child’s needs on a reliable basis.
In addition to her substance abuse, the Court finds that Ms. G-----
has engaged in conduct intended to control the custodial arrangement
and limit Mr. S-----’s role in Child’s life. When Mr. S----- sought to
establish paternity, the Court ordered genetic testing on two separate
occasions, yet Ms. G----- failed to appear for two of the three scheduled
appointments. This delayed confirmation of paternity and, in turn,
delayed the development of Child’s relationship with her father. More
recently, Ms. G----- filed a stipulation with the Court that purported to
reflect an agreed shared custody arrangement, despite bearing only her
signature and lacking Mr. S-----’s consent. Her claim that she believed
the document was merely a proposal is not credible given her
professional background as a legal assistant and her demonstrated
familiarity with filing stipulations to end court proceedings. The
attempt of Ms. G----- and her mother to influence Child to suggest
shared placement on terms similar to her “stipulation” is yet another
example of intent to control. This conduct, taken together with her
history of substance abuse, reflects a consistent pattern of placing her
own preferences above Child’s best interest.
In light of the testimony presented, the Court awards the parties
JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY. Mr. S----- shall have the ability to make
final decisions, but only after consulting with Ms. G----- in advance and
after fully considering her opinions on issues affecting the child. The
Court, of course, retains the right to decide the reas0nableness of all
major decisions upon filing of a Petition – Rule to Show Cause. As joint

6
custodians, the parties must discuss all the major decisions in Child’s
life. These decisions include, but are not limited to, Child’s support,
care, nurture, welfare, education, and religion.
Mr. S----- shall have PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT of
Child. The Court is required by statute to award a non-residential
parent a schedule of parenting time “designed to permit and encourage
the child to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents
unless the Court finds, after a hearing, that contact of the child with 1
parent would endanger the child’s physical health or significantly
impair such child’s emotional development.”
While Ms. G-----’s periodic relapses raise concerns, they do not rise
to the level of requiring significant restrictions on custodial time.
Rather, it was Ms. G-----’s unilateral decision to relocate from
Wilmington to Millsboro, two hours apart, that makes a more balanced
placement nearly impossible. Child is in a school in Wilmington,
selected by both parties, where she is well adjusted and happy. A shared
placement is not possible based on these facts. Fortunately, Ms. G-----
does come to Wilmington every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,
making it possible for her to have some Sunday overnights at her
mother and stepfather’s home, Wednesday for some custodial time,
and Friday afternoon for pickup at the start of her weekends.
Ms. G----- will have custodial time on alternate weekends from after
school on Fridays until the start of school on Mondays. Ms. G----- will
also have custodial time every Wednesday from after school until 7:00
p.m. As a prerequisite to this schedule, Ms. G----- will not consume
any alcohol from twenty-four hours prior to her custodial time
until Child is returned to Mr. S-----.14
II. Facts Between Current Order and Petition for Modification.
The Current Order was issued on August 19, 2025. The Petition for
Modification was filed on October 7, 2025. Consistent with the August 19, 2025
custody order, Mother had custodial time with Child during this period on three
14 Dkt. 31 (bold in original).

7
weekends from Friday afterschool until Monday morning and five Wednesday
dinner visits from afterschool until 7:00 p.m. Although the testimony was not clear,
it appears that she exercised those times primarily at her parents’ home in Newark.
On Wednesday, October 1, 2026, Mother left her parents’ home with Child to
return her to Father. Father suspected that Mother was intoxicated based upon his
personal experience of alcohol addiction, his years of experience as an alcohol
treatment provider, and his personal experience with Mother. Father testified that
she arrived at his home in an altered state. He explained that “she was slurring her
words, she was standing funny, and she parked her minivan sideways in straight
parking spots, which she's never done before.”15
On Friday, October 3, 2025, Mother had an accident in her van on the way to
her parents’ home. She abandoned the van in the street and immediately walked to
her parents’ house. Maternal Grandfather testified that Child was out with the
grandparents for dinner at the time. He saw the six to eight police cars around the
vehicle and took a detour to prevent Child from seeing her Mother’s crashed van as
it would cause her emotional harm.
On Saturday, October 4, 2025, Mother went to a car rental company to get a
replacement vehicle so she could take Child to a party. Maternal Grandfather
testified that Mother made a “booze stop” at a liquor store.16 She returned to the
15 Trial Tr. at 12:10:46.
16 Father’s Ex. 21.

8
home intoxicated. Mother insisted that she would be driving Child to the party.
The Maternal Grandparents intervened and told Mother that she was not driving
the Child anywhere in her intoxicated state. Mother stormed out of the house and
drove off. She totaled the rental car and was arrested for her fifth driving under the
influence charge.
Father already had concerns about Mother being drunk when driving Child
to his home the previous Wednesday. Maternal Grandfather testified that, “around
October 1st,” Father expressed his concerns about Mother drinking. But Maternal
Grandfather believed that he and his wife could protect Child. Maternal Grandfather
was aware that Mother was going to drive Child, and testified that it was Mother’s
“intention to take [Child] to the birthday party.”17 He explained that neither
Maternal Grandparent would allow Mother to drive Child due to Mother’s
intoxicated state on October 4th. Maternal Grandfather provided Father with his
update of the situation by text message:
J------ Update – Weekend of 10/2 thru 10/4/25
• Another relapse this week (10/2) that has continued into the
weekend
• J------ & V---- spending the weekend with us (10/4 – 10/6)
• J------ in accident turning into our development (Fri night
10/3)
• Left scene, leaving car blocking intersection then walked to
our house
17 Trial Tr. at 4:01:17.

9
• We were out with V---- but upon return found 6-8 State
police cars at the entrance
• Saw J------’s van & to protect V---- we drive around for 1hr
while chaos cleared
• We suspect J------ was drinking & was trying to avoid a DUI
• J------’s van is impounded until Monday (10/6)
• J------ rents a car (10/4) & ends upon making a booze stop
• Returns to our house thinking she is going to take V---- to a
WCS bday party (Sat 10/4)
• We say she’s not taking V---- anywhere. She gets in her rental
car and drives away
• C-------- and I take V---- to the bday party that she had been
looking forward to
• While at party (10/4), C-------- receives a call that J------ in
accident & totaled the rental car
• Later that night (10/4), C-------- receives a J------ txt. she’s in
hospital & seeking a ride
• Sunday (10/5) we find out she’s in jail w/potential of doing
serious jail time. Her last DUI was 6yrs ago but this will be
her 4th or 5th DUI. 18
Maternal Grandmother also confirmed that Mother had been drinking. She
testified:
The Saturday morning after the Friday event, she spent the night
with us and she was fine at, at, at to a point, I, I mean, until a certain
point in the day, we had already alerted Mr. S----- that she had been
drinking and we had assured him that under no circumstance,
regardless of her demeanor or comportment, was V---- going
anywhere with her unless they were both in our presence and
vehicle. So as a result, I mean, but the Friday night the accident didn't
happen yet.19
18 Father’s Ex. 21 (red type in original).
19 Trial Tr. at 3:11:16 (emphasis added).

10
III. Facts Between Petition for Modification and Trial Date.
a. Mother. Mother was arrested on her fifth DUI charge on October 4, 2025.
She pleaded guilty on December 18, 2025, and was sentenced to institutional
confinement for 18 months. She is serving her sentence at the Baylor Women’s
Correctional Institution. Mother testified that she has made progress at the facility
and is two steps below “Chef” in the kitchen with commensurate responsibility. She
participated in a three day spiritual retreat. At Baylor, she reads the Bible, joined
the Choir, and wants to “learn more about praising God.” Her technical release date
is April 4, 2027, but she anticipates an early release on or around November 4, 2026,
after application of good time and merit credits.
Mother claims that “I've gotten in trouble with the law in the past. I never had
children when that happened. All that stuff happened before I became a mother and
I always was grateful for that and I couldn't imagine what it would have been like to
be away from my children for any, any period of time like that.”20 Mother’s
testimony does match the history of this case where intoxication, guardianship,
custody modification, and temporary removals have occurred since Child was born.
She maintains FaceTime contact from prison with the two-year-old daughter
of her marriage. She does not have the same contact with Child, primarily because
she has not listed Father as an authorized caller. Mother is entitled to virtually
20 Trial Tr. at 2:18:53.

11
unlimited calls, but only to four individuals that she identified for Baylor. She
named her husband, her mother, her father, and her sponsor as those individuals.
Yet Mother still blamed Father for her lack of contact with Child, claiming that “the
point for talking was over” because “he wished to annihilate me as her mother”
because he filed a petition for termination of parental rights that he voluntarily
dismissed after speaking with Counsel.21
Mother admitted that she had two phone calls with Child during her
sentence. While she characterized the conversations as “very brief,” they were
clearly more detailed. Mother testified that Child “would come in and want to
speak” with Mother.22 She stated that Child indicated that she was potentially
relocating. Mother testified,
South Carolina got brought up. Myrtle Beach, I think, she
said. She had just gone there and then she said, “Daddy and Jess
are moving to South Carolina,” which surprised me because that
hadn’t been decided but also that she knows about it. And I just
said, oh, and I said, geez, are you going to South Carolina?
Because I was curious to see what he had told her if she was going
with them, like if that was assumed in her world. And she said
she didn't know. This was back in December. She said, I don't
know. And then I was curious just for honesty, for my own
knowledge, I said, do you want to go to South Carolina? And she
said no. And I was like, oh, you want to stay here with mommy
and Honey and Papa? And she said yeah, at that time.23
21 Trial Tr. at 2:53:20.
22 Trial Tr. at 2:20:24.
23 Trial Tr. at 2:21:15.

12
Mother testified that she would have to rely on her parents to care for Child
if Father moved to South Carolina without Child. She stated, “I would live in their
home, they would be there to help, like the support system that everyone talks
about.”24 This plan is at odds with her husband’s plan for Mother’s recovery.
Mother’s husband was asked whether Mother would be living with him and
his parents in Millsboro. He responded, “So from my understanding, and I don't
totally know how her probation is going to work, but I know she'll be on probation.
She'll have an ankle monitor at that time she will be residing with me, my parents
and [our daughter]. And honestly, I don’t really want her getting a full time job,
anything like that. I want her to focus on her recovery.”25
b. Father. Father’s facts during this period are more limited. He disputes
Mother and Maternal Grandmother’s assertion that he does not want Child to speak
with Mother. Rather, Father claims, he has concerns about the two of them
attempting to influence Child toward their position. He referenced the Court’s
Order denying the grandparents’ request for visitation because of attempts to
manipulate Child. Father testified that “we – me and [Maternal Grandfather] – came
to the conclusion over the years that when [Child] talks to her mother on the phone,
the mother makes promises and gives her hopes and dreams that never prevail.”26
24 Trial Tr. at 2:54:40.
25 Trial Tr. at 1:59:49.
26 Trial Tr. at 1:15:34.

13
The Court sustained those allegations in the Current Order.27
Father’s testimony on relocation was fulsome. He explained that his own
father had sold the recovery centers (where Father had worked) and planned to
move to South Carolina. Father supported the decision and desired to move there
as well. He was given $500,000 from the sale of the business which he used to
purchase outright a home in a community in Little River, SC, near North Myrtle
Beach, for $360,000.28 Additionally he has an income stream of $4,000 per week for
one year. Father described his intended neighborhood as “prominent” where Child
would have:
her own room, her own windows. She has her own door. She has
her own living room upstairs. But I think this is an actual home
where, you know, we can build as a family, go through things as a
family, get through things as a family, love as a family. And, you
27 See Dkt. 58, File No. CN20-04241, Case No. 25-28643. The April 24, 2026 Interim Order recites,
“Father remains concerned about both the Maternal Grandmother and Mother attempting to
influence V------. He noted that the seven-year-old child has returned from visits with the
Maternal Grandparents angry with Father and that it took her a few days to calm down. She told
Father that Mother had spoken to her on the phone, even though the Maternal Grandparents had
pledged that such contact would not occur. He testified that the Maternal Grandparents went to
V------’s school for a book fair but did not tell Father of their intentions. At the book fair, the
grandparents gave V------ $100 to buy books and told her to return the $50 that Father had given
her. Father stated that the Maternal Grandparents were invited to V------’s birthday party and
they attended. However, Mother and Maternal Grandmother told V------ that Mother had bought
a great gift for her which she would get when she visits with her grandparents. Each of these
incidents caused Father serious concerns and he is not willing to allow the contact schedule as
requested by the Maternal Grandparents.
“Father’s objections are not unreasonable. He offered unlimited video phone contact with V------,
but the Maternal Grandmother did not believe it would be adequate. He also offered in-person
visits approximately once per month so long as they arranged it with Father. The Maternal
Grandparents did not request time under Father’s prerequisites.”
28 Father Ex. 32.

14
know, it’s just a space for consistency and it’s a perfect house. It’s
the perfect house for a family.29
His clear preference is to move to South Carolina.30 If relocation is not
granted, Father and his wife would be forced to look into long term renters or
potential AirBnB occupants.31 He contrasted his potential home to his current home
– a two bedroom condominium in Wilmington where Father, his wife, their young
son, and Child would have to continue to live. Father explained that they already
had to move to the two bedroom unit because the one bedroom unit they were in
was too small for the family, but even the two bedroom condo was too small for
their four person family.
Father explained that the South Carolina home was a blessing: “It’s amazing
how God worked on this one because this was a ‘diamond in the rough’ and I can’t
believe we ended up getting it. There was a $100,000 price cut on it. I love the area
– absolutely beautiful – It’s on the waterway.”32
Father testified that he is proficient in many trades, but working as a heavy
equipment operator in South Carolina would allow him to begin work immediately.
He explained, “I do have connections there and I've done the work. I know what
they want, where they're going to be, but I still need income at the same time. So,
29 Trial Tr. at 11:49:50.
30 Trial Tr. at 4:08:24.
31 Trial Tr. at 11:50:03.
32 Trial Tr. at 11:48:48.

15
you know, I would definitely, there's so much work in South Carolina right now that
they're literally flying people in from different States and putting them in hotels to
work.”33
Father has looked into a number of schools for Child – some of which were
provided by Mother during their discussions on relocation over the last two years.
Father, Mother, and Mother’s husband had extensive conversations about South
Carolina, where each would be moving, the time frame for such moves, and the like.
Father introduced multiple e-mail messages from Mother enthusiastically
supporting a move. Mother provided information from her husband om schools.
Oh hey. R---- said that you can’t choice in anywhere so you
basically want to pick your school district and find a home that
falls into it. Which a realtor can help with. According to this
one site Early College HS right where coastal Carolina is [ ] good.
And you’d want to pick based on the high school not elementary
school. Near there are a bunch of cute homes on a lake. Don’t
even know if we’re buying or renting but the coastal Carolina
area is nice according to R---- and considered Conway. I’m just
brainstorming lol34
Mother sent a picture of listings. Father responded with similar enthusiasm,
writing “It’s so crazy how [yo]u can get that house for $264,000.” Mother’s reply was
“I know, right it’s why I refuse to buy anything around this area.”35 Father agreed,
noting that the cost for a similar house in Wilmington would cost “$600[,000] easily
33 Trial Tr. at 11:51:29.
34 Father’s Ex.7 at F-063.
35 Id. at F-064.

16
for that here.”36 She sent Father a screenshot of the electoral map with the
President’s picture and the text “This northeast problem here is one reason why I
want to move south.”37 Mother provided additional support in another message:
R----‘s parents would move to North Myrtle and his brother
and sister are over in Columbia so we would want to be
somewhere not exactly in Myrtle and more toward Columbia but
not necessarily all the way in Columbia so Conway isn’t bad. He
just doesn’t want to live right at the beach.38
Mother’s text messages did not discuss Maternal Grandparents. While she
claimed at trial that she was just hypothesizing in the messages, the actual texts
show her being supportive of a move at best, and ambiguous at worst.
ANALYSIS
The commentary set forth below recounts the testimony introduced at trial.
Phrases in quotation marks are quotes or paraphrases from the testimony. The
Court considered all of the testimony but finds the following as credible and relevant
in the analysis of the 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(1) threshold, the 13 Del. C. § 722 best interest
factors, and the 13 Del. C. § 734 relocation factors. A complete recounting of all
testimony is available on the record.
36 Id. at F-065.
37 Id. at F-066.
38 Id. at F-065.

17
I. Custody Modification
Father filed his modification petition within two years of entry of the Custody
Order. The Court may grant Father’s requested modification only if “it finds, after
a hearing, that continuing enforcement of the prior order may endanger [Child’s]
physical health or significantly impair [her] emotional development.”39 The
Delaware Supreme Court has held that if a petitioner meets the threshold test set
forth in 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(1), the Family Court must explicitly consider the 13 Del.
C. § 722 best interest factors before granting petitioner’s desired modification unless
petitioner also sought a new visitation schedule that would permit and encourage
the child to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents.40
A. 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(1) Threshold
On August 19, 2025, the Court entered the Current Order after a full hearing
on the merits. The Order provided the parties with joint legal custody, but allowed
Father to make final decisions after fully considering Mother’s views on the issue to
be decided. Father was granted primary residential placement and Mother was
given parenting time on alternate weekends and dinner visits every Wednesday.
On October 7, 2025, seven weeks later, Father filed the Petition for Custody
Modification presently under consideration. Since the filing occurred within two
39 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(1).
40 Tatum v. Yost, 931 A.2d 438, 2007 WL 2323791, at *1, 3 (Del. 2007); Hill v. Fox, 312 A.3d 1156, 2024
WL 566073, at *4 (Del. 2024); see 13 Del. C. § 728(a).

18
years of the Current Order, the Court must consider whether enforcing the Current
Order would endanger Child’s physical health or would significantly impair her
emotional development.
In order to evaluate whether the requested modification meets the statutory
criteria, we must first look to the Current Order and the reasons why it was entered.
1. Background to Current Order.
The parties have a long and tortured history in their custody cases. Mother
and Maternal Grandparents were involved in multiple guardianship cases due to
Mother’s alcohol abuse. The first petition, filed by Maternal Grandmother, listed
“Unknown Father” as a Respondent, and was voluntarily dismissed on March 3,
2020.41
Maternal Grandparents filed the second time, again listing “Unknown Father”
on the petition. An interim order was issued with the parties’ consent which
required, in pertinent part, that trial be set for September 2021 with the
grandparents having guardianship while Mother was at the Oxford House recovery
center.42 The parties subsequently executed a stipulation of dismissal removing the
second case from Court consideration.
Maternal Grandparents filed their third Petition for Guardianship one month
later, alleging that Mother left Child (then age two) “in the home unattended on
41 File No. CN20-01373, Dkt. 8.
42 File No. CN20-04241, Dkt. 16.

19
October 16 to go to a liquor store for alcohol.”43 Maternal Grandparents further
alleged that there was a “substantial risk of physical and emotional harm to Child”
in Mother’s care.44 Unknown to the Court at the time, Mother had already filed a
petition for child support against Father three months earlier. The Court required
that Father be added to the guardianship petition, and Maternal Grandparents filed
an Amended Petition, this time naming Father as a Respondent. The Court
scheduled trial for September 16, 2021.
Mother knew who Father was, and she filed a petition for custody on April 2,
2020. Paternity testing was ordered with the consent of the parties on June 25, 2020.
When Mother learned that paternity testing had been ordered, she moved to
withdraw her custody petition. The Court dismissed Mother’s petition at her request
on September 6, 2020. However, the order for paternity testing remained open. An
appointment letter was sent to Mother and Father for testing on February 1, 2021.
Mother called the Court on January 25, 2021, asking “why the notice was sent since
the petition was withdrawn.”45 On October 18, 2021, a second consent for paternity
testing was executed by Mother and Father. On January 24, 2022, a Commissioner
entered the Order of Paternity.46
43 File No. CN20-04241, Dkt. 22.
44 Id.
45 Dkt. [minute entry], Jan. 25, 2021.
46 File No. CN20-01084, Dkt. 21.

20
Three weeks later, on February 17, 2022, Maternal Grandparents, Mother, and
newly-confirmed Father executed a Consent Order of Guardianship. Mother had
successfully delayed her cases through dismissals and stipulations until Father was
finally confirmed for Child who was then close to three years old.
Mother was able to have the guardianship rescinded by Stipulation on March
26, 2024,47 the parents had joint legal custody, and the situation was settled for the
next year. In the meantime, Mother had a second child on August 31, 2024, and
married the father. Mother, her husband, and the paternal grandparents all had
alcohol addictions. Her husband and his own parents had been sober for a
considerable time – Father for two years, his parents for nearly 40 years. Mother
was not, and her parenting ability deteriorated. On June 23, 2025, her husband filed
a Petition for Custody of their ten-month-old daughter.48
On June 23, 2025, Father filed a Petition for Custody of Child and an ex parte
motion due to Mother being intoxicated regularly for over a period of three weeks.
He stated that Mother showed “anger and rage” on the phone, calling Father and his
wife more than thirty times over twenty minutes. She was slurring her words and
was unable to express coherent thought in conversation.49
47 File No. CN20-04241, Dkt. 44.
48 File No. CN25-03106, Dkt. 1.
49 Dkt. 25.

21
The Court granted Father and Mother’s husband the requested ex parte
orders. An interim order was issued at the probable cause hearing. Mother’s
custodial time was suspended until trial on August 18, 2025. Mother attempted to
circumvent this hearing as well. On July 21, 2025, she prepared and filed a document
that she represented was a “Stipulation” ending the case.50 The Court contacted
Father and learned that he had not seen the document and was not in agreement.51
Trial was conducted as scheduled, resulting in the Current Order.52
2. Status Under Current Order.
The Current Order gave Father primary residential placement and restricted
Mother’s time with Child to alternate weekends and a weekly dinner visit. This was
the first time that Father had a substantial period of time to “parent” Child, and the
Court allowed joint custody to continue with a caveat – Father would have authority
to make final decisions after consulting with Mother.53 Joint legal custody was
limited, but not eliminated, to allow Mother to participate fully in decisions
affecting Child. However, in light of her numerous in-patient treatments, a two-
plus years of guardianship, and her recent return to intoxication, Father would make
the final decisions.
50 Mother filed a similar stipulation with her husband concerning their infant, thereby resolving
their separate custody petition.
51 Dkt. 30.
52 Dkt. 31.
53 Id. at 12.

22
3. Changes Post-Current Order.
So, what had changed in the forty-nine days between the entry of the Current
Order and the filing of the petition for modification, and does it create a risk of
physical and developmental harm for Child? Mother had already “lost sobriety” in
April 2025, and followed it up with altercations with her husband in June 2025. Her
husband and their daughter had to move from Wilmington to Millsboro due to her
alcohol problems.54 At the time of the last hearing, Mother had entered another
treatment program.
This time Mother was intoxicated on two (and arguably three)55 days during
the same custodial week. She had two car accidents, one of which totaled a
replacement rental vehicle. Her damaged van remains impounded. Father
identified Mother’s intoxication on October 1st. Mother crashed her van on October
3rd. She took her rental vehicle for a “booze stop” before showing up at her parents’
home drunk on October 4th. Maternal Grandfather testified that it was her intention
to drive Child to a birthday party. When the grandparents intervened, Mother
stormed out and ended up totaling the rental car.
54 Trial Tr. at 2:02:53 – 2:06:23.
55 Mother denied that she was intoxicated when she crashed her van on October 3, 2026.
Her statement is highly questionable as she immediately left the scene, abandoned the van
at the crash site where six to eight police officers responded, and immediately walked to her
parent’s house which would not have been quickly identified by the officers as it was not
Mother’s registered address. Moreover, Paternal Grandfather wrote that “we suspect
[Mother] was drinking & was trying to avoid a DUI.” The logical conclusion from these facts
is that Mother was attempting to avoid arrest and a possible new DUI charge.

23
These incidents, less than seven weeks after Mother was ordered not to
consume alcohol, creates a serious risk of physical harm for Child. They indicate
that Mother places alcohol abuse above her parenting obligations and Court Orders.
While Maternal Grandparent can do their best to protect Child, they are not always
going to be present. Indeed, Mother has challenged her parents on multiple
occasions, and the grandparents had to file three times for guardianship when
Mother and Child were not in their presence. If, for some reason, Mother is alone
with Child, there is a high likelihood that Child may suffer serious physical injury
when Mother again chooses alcohol over her children.
Mother’s husband recognizes this risk. It is the reason why he believes that,
after she is released from prison on her fifth DUI, Mother should not work outside
the home, but rather focus exclusively on her recovery. Maternal Grandparents
recognize this risk. Their multiple guardianship petitions all reference the risk of
harm to Child while in Mother’s care. They have intervened to prevent Mother from
driving Child while intoxicated despite her intention to take Child. They have
instructed Father not to release Child to Mother in similar situations.
Mother is aware of the risk. In her own words at trial,
[I]t's a daily thing that I have to keep going at because like I have
proven that if I lit up for any reason, like I drink again, regardless of
consequences and things of that nature, that … this is … this does
happen. And if there's any second where I don't ask for, for strength
and to fight this, this disease that I have alcoholism, I don't think
it's a question that I have alcoholism. I've been to rehabs, I've had

24
DUIs. I mean, that I don't that … that shouldn't be up for discussion.
It is a fact. And I need to do what I need to do to fight it on a daily
basis.56
The risk of physical harm is palpable, credible and real.
Risk of developmental harm also exists. Mother was sentenced to prison for
eighteen months. She was in a twenty-eight-day program in June 2025. She was in
the Limen House for ninety days. She was in the Oxford House for an unspecified
period of time. Yet, neither Mother nor Paternal Grandmother have shared this
information with Child. Paternal Grandmother tells Child that “her mother is not
well and she needs time to get better.”57 Paternal Grandfather “kind of defers on
those questions to the maternal grandmother.”58 It is unclear from the testimony
exactly what Mother has told Child. Father is unsure of what to say. He is torn
between telling her the truth and allowing the grandparents to tell her about their
own daughter, Child’s Mother. Father stated, “I don't think it's appropriate to tell a
seven year old that your mom's in jail and you're not going to see her for a while. So
what I have said was … ‘is … I don't know where she is.’” Dr. Finkelstein, the expert
who opined on bonding between Child to Father, and Child to Grandparents – but
not Child to Mother – testified that he had no indication that Child knew her mother
56 Trial Tr. at 2:22:27.
57 Trial Tr. at 10:11:19.
58 Id.

25
was in prison. Curiously, Child told Dr. Finkelstein that it was the judge who is
keeping her from Mother, a misdirected assertion.
Dr. Finkelstein, a psychologist with decades of experience with youth, stated,
“I think there needs to be some help to [Child] to maintain her sense of security as
a child.”59 The changes referenced by Dr. Finkelstein are directly related to Mother’s
recurrent loss of sobriety. Child is being affected by Mother’s imprisonment,
compounded by the lack of any cogent explanation to her about her Mother’s
“disappearance.”
The Court finds that Father has met his burden to prove that enforcing the
Current Order may result in the risk of physical and developmental harm to Child.
Modification of the Current Order is appropriate.
B. 13 Del. C. § 722(a) Best Interest Factors
The Court conducted a full hearing on the merits, and made findings on the
best interest factors in the Current Order. The Order was not appealed and the
findings are binding. Those findings remain applicable to this case will not be
repeated in extensive analysis. Some facts have changed and are noted in the
updates below.
1. Wishes of the Parents.
Father seeks to change the Current Order from joint custody with final
59 Trial Tr. at 10:14:20.

26
decision making authority to sole custody based upon Mother’s repeated relapses
making it unfeasible for joint custody to continue. Mother seeks to retain joint
custody but acknowledges that she has not called Father or attempted to contact
him since her incarceration in October 2025.
In the Current Order, factor one was neutral. Mother’s present actions are
inconsistent with her stated wishes today. Her relapses in October 2025, and her
sentence of eighteen months imprisonment have changed the balance on this factor.
Factor one now favors Father.
2. Wishes of the Child.
In the Current Order, the Court noted Child’s wishes that “she does not want
anything to change.” Despite the Court’s lack of full confidence that Child’s
statements truly reflect her feelings, factor two was determined to be neutral.
Nothing has changed with respect to the Child perspective as it relates to this
custody modification petition.
Factor two remains neutral.
3. Child’s Relationship with the Important People in her life.
In the Current Order, the Court noted that Child was well-bonded with
Mother, Father, and both sides of her extended families. The only change in this
case is the lack of contact with Mother due to her extended incarceration and the
lack of information about it provided to Child. While the latter qualification is

27
applicable to factor six, it does not impact Child’s relationship with the important
people in her life. She still loves her Mother, half-sister, stepfather, Maternal
Grandparents, Father, her half-brother, her stepmother, and her paternal relatives.
Factor three remains neutral.
4. Child’s adjustment to School, Home, and Community.
In the Current Order, the Court found
[Child] is well adjusted to her current school, home, and
community with [Father]. At present, [Mother] does not have a
stable home or established community to which V------ could be
adjusted. It is possible that once [Mother] secures a long-term
residence, [Child] may become adjusted to that environment;
however, under the present circumstances, this factor strongly
favors [Father].
At the time of the Current Order, Mother was in a rehabilitation facility with
release within one month. At the time of this hearing, Mother is incarcerated until
at least November 2026.
Factor four did and does strongly favor Father.
5. Physical and Mental Health of all Parties and Child.
In the Current Order, the Court found:
[Mother] generally has good physical and mental health.
However, as [Father] and [Child]’s godfather testified, she
routinely relapses every nine to twelve months. She has four DUI
convictions and many stays at treatment facilities but claims that
no one in the courts or treatment facilities has ever
recommended the Antabuse drug. Her repeated relapses and in-
patient treatment paint a complex picture of an otherwise

28
healthy mother who has to “disappear” on a regular basis due to
alcohol.
This finding has been strengthened by Mother’s post-order relapse and
subsequent incarceration. Mother testified to some positive changes in her health
conditions. She has not had alcohol since her incarceration and believes she will
continue her sobriety post-release. She has a sponsor, a supportive husband, and a
new found spiritual relationship. However, she had the same supports over Child’s
life but still relapsed. The Court looks to her present condition and her future
outlook, with consideration of failed past recovery efforts. Each of these lead the
Court to maintain its findings from the Current Order.
Factor five continues to strongly favor Father.
6. Parties Fulfillment of Rights and Responsibilities as Parents
In the Current Order, the Court found that factor six strongly favored Father.
The only factual change since the Current Order is Mother’s incarceration, and the
lack of any information that she has given to Child about her imprisonment. Father
has deferred to Mother and Maternal Grandparents to share information about
Mother’s whereabouts to Child. A responsible parent would find a way to discuss,
in a seven-year-old’s terms how actions and consequences are part of growing up.
This would a positive way for Child to learn and grow from Mother’s missteps.
Instead, Mother and Maternal Grandmother have diverted the focus leaving the

29
Child with the impression that others – primarily Father, and secondarily the Court
– are responsible for the loss of her contact with Mother.
Factor six did and does strongly favor Father.
7. Evidence of Domestic Violence.
There was no evidence of domestic violence noted in the Current Order and
none was presented to the Court at trial on the modification petition.
Factor seven remains neutral.
8. Criminal History of the Parties.
In the Current Order, factor eight only slightly favored Father as Mother’s
four DUI convictions were prior to Child’s birth. Mother has now been convicted
and is incarcerated on her fifth DUI which occurred during Mother’s custodial time.
The recent conviction strengthens the concern about her ability to ensure Child’s
safety in her care.
Factor eight now favors Father.
C. Conclusion on Custody Modification
No single best interest factor is dispositive, and the Court must consider all
the factors as a whole. In this case, factors one, four, five, six, and eight continue to
favor Father. Factors two, three, and seven are neutral. No factors favor Mother. In
this modification case, factors one, six, and eight carry more weight than the others.
While there was no testimony in the August 2025 hearing indicating that either

30
party interferes with decisions, the situation has changed since entry of the Current
Order. Mother is now incarcerated and has not attempted to contact Father.
Moreover, her shielding of Child from the reality of her situation makes the current
arrangement unsuitable. Finally, Mother’s DUI based on her intoxication during
her custodial time, and her unrebutted intention to drive Child during that
intoxication, argue strongly for sole custody. The Court will award Father sole legal
custody.
Residential Placement has also changed as a result of Mother’s predicament.
While the Current Order set a schedule of custodial time for Mother, she abused the
privilege and is no longer able to benefit from the award. Father shall continue to
have primary residential placement. Mother’s custodial time will be suspended until
she is released and has established a permanent home – which may be with her
husband, or may be with her parents, or may be somewhere else – so that Child will
have a safe, reliable, and consistent place to share with Mother during her parenting
time.
Similarly, holiday times are suspended during Mother’s incarceration.
Mother is reminded that she is always able to file for modification of her custodial
schedule at any time, and the decision will be based on Child’s best interest without
the bar applicable to petitions to modify custody. She also may discuss a schedule

31
of custodial time, which includes holidays, with Father to reach an agreement
without a Court determination.
II. Relocation
Requests for relocation are governed by 13 Del. C. § 734, which provides as
follows:
When in the course of litigation involving custody or visitation,
there is a proposed relocation of a child for a period of 60 days or
more involving either a move outside the State of Delaware or a
move that materially affects the current custodial and residential
arrangement or order, the Court must consider the following
factors:
(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of
the child's relationship with the individual proposing to relocate
and with the nonrelocating individual, siblings, and other
significant individuals in the child's life.
(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the
likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical,
educational, and emotional development, taking into consideration
any special needs of the child.
(3) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the
nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable visitation
arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances
of the parties.
(4) The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and
maturity of the child.
(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of the
individual seeking the relocation, either to promote or thwart the
relationship of the child and the nonrelocating individual.

32
(6) Whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general
quality of life for both the individual seeking the relocation and the
child, including financial or emotional benefit or educational
opportunity.
(7) The reasons of each individual for seeking or opposing the
relocation.
(8) Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.60
Father seeks to relocate Child outside the State of Delaware for more than 60
days, so the Court is obligated to weigh the eight factors set out in 13 Del. C. § 734.61
The Court will follow past Family Court decisions suggesting that “best interest of
the child” as used in 13 Del. C. § 734(8) refers to the best interest factors enumerated
in 13 Del. C. § 722.62
ANALYSIS
As with the analysis of the best interest factors in the custody modification
case, the commentary set forth below references the testimony introduced at trial.
The Court considered all of the testimony as to relocation, but finds the following
as credible and relevant in the analysis of the 13 Del. C. § 734 relocation factors.
60 13 Del.C. § 734.
61 The Court finds, as an alternative and independent basis for the applicability of 13 Del. C. § 734,
that Father’s proposed relocation would “materially [affect] the current custodial and residential
arrangement or order.” Though the statute does not specifically define the term “materially”, past
decisions of this Court indicate that the distance of the proposed relocation is a significant if not
dispositive consideration in the materiality inquiry. This court has found a relocation from
Delaware to North Carolina to be material “[g]iven the considerable distance between [the two
states]”, L.R. v. S.R., No. CN18-01533, 2022 WL 663333, at *1 (Del. Fam. Ct. Jan. 25, 2022).
62 See L.R. v. S.R., Del. Fam. Ct., No. CN18-01533, Coonin, J., at *8 n.2 (Jan. 25, 2022) (“The Court
utilizes the best interest factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722” in its 13 Del. C. § 734(8) analysis).

33
The Court notes at the outset that the request for relocation is decided in the
Child’s best interest as to Mother and Father, not Father and Maternal
Grandparents. There is no question that Child has a strong relationship with
Maternal Grandparents, and that relationship is considered in relocation factors one
and eight. As Mother’s Counsel stated at trial, “I’m looking at this as a ‘plus factor.’
Do you know what I mean – that I am not trying to substitute anyone. I am just
saying that there is this [relationship].”63
A. 13 Del. C. § 734 Relocation Factors
1. The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the
child's relationship with the individual proposing to relocate and
with the nonrelocating individual, siblings, and other significant
individuals in the child's life.
Father has been the sole caretaker of Child since August 2025. Prior to the
Current Order, Father and Mother had shared residential placement. Father
described his positive, age-appropriate, and supportive relationship with Child. Dr.
Finkelstein, who performed a bonding assessment of Child to Father, agrees. He
noted that Child “felt a level of comfort and physical intimacy with her father. It
also suggested that she sought contact with her father as a means of reassurance
prior to commencing a novel situation.”64 Dr. Finkelstein noted that Child
“described her father in caring terms and clearly showed affection for him.” She
63 Trial Tr. at 1:09:53.
64 Mother’s Ex. 1 at *5.

34
“also reflected a strong sense of happiness when it is time to return to her father
again.”65
Dr. Finkelstein noted in the Summary section of his bonding report that Child
“exhibited a strong sense of physical safety with her father.” She “touched her father,
and he touched her in a manner intended to convey affection and support.” He
noted that Father “helped to guide her in situations where expectations were
unclear.” Dr. Finkelstein found that Father “helped her to feel secure enough to
explore her world.”66
In considering his key indicators of secure attachment, Dr. Finkelstein found
[T]hey all seem to apply consistently to [Child]’s relationship
with her father. He has been a consistent presence for her, and
[Child{ has shown indications that he is a reliable figure for her.
Though the current observations only included an array of mild
emotional reactions, [Child]’s father was able to provide a safe
haven for [Child] so that she could turn to him for comfort when
she felt anxious or uncertain. She showed subtle signs of distress
during a brief separation from him. When in his presence, she
seemed to feel capable of engaging in a variety of tasks.67
All of these observations and opinions were possible because Dr. Finkelstein
was able to observe Child with Father.
Unfortunately, he did not have the same perspective as to Mother because he
did not observe her with Child. This is especially disappointing because trial was
65 Id. at *8.
66 Id. at *9.
67 Id. at *10.

35
continued for three months to allow the bonding evaluation to take place. Mother
described her strong relationship with Child, and Child reflected the same during
her interview with the Court in August 2025.
By the date of trial, Mother had been out of touch with Child for ten months.
Dr. Finkelstein was hard pressed to find an area of his report that addressed bonding
between Child and Mother. Dr. Finkelstein testified, “there isn’t as much in the
report about that [Mother-Child bonding} because of the circumstances making it
difficult to assess that.”68 He referenced a single statement by Child “on page 8,
paragraph 4, on [Child’s] comments about the plan to move and the consequences
for her.”69 However, Dr. Finkelstein was quite clear that he was not offering an
opinion on a move, stating “as I mentioned previously a few minutes ago, that I am
not here to make recommendations about visitation, relocation, any of the
schedules.”70
On Child’s relationships beyond her parents, Dr. Finkelstein found – as did
the Court – that her bond with Maternal Grandparents is strong. This was not in
doubt in the Current Order and is not in doubt following this trial. As Child stated
during her Court interview ten months ago, “I just want things to be like they used
to be.”
68 Trial Tr. at 10:07:48.
69 Id.
70 Trial Tr. at 9:50:08.

36
Dr. Finkelstein did not evaluate any bonding between Child and her
stepmother or either half-sibling. He noted on cross-examination, “I think in that
case, the father is the biological parent and the source of the greatest attachment.
And so by assessing that relationship, in particular, I’m assessing the most
significant relationship for her among that family.”71 It is understandable that he
did evaluate the Child-Maternal Grandparents bond as their guardianship was in
lieu of the Mother-Child parenting time. The Court agrees with the expert that the
biological parents are the source of greatest attachment and, therefore, the most
significant relationship to be evaluated.
Factor one favors Father and relocation .
2. The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely
impact the relocation will have on the child's physical,
educational, and emotional development, taking into
consideration any special needs of the child.
Child is seven years old. She is smart – very smart – and articulate. She
performs well in school and, to her credit, avoids talking about one parent to the
other. It helps her preserve her identity in each family. Child explained to Father
that she is excited about the move to South Carolina. She also has expressed that
she will miss the closeness with Maternal Grandparents. Children are resilient and
this Child is no exception. She has no special needs. The schools in South Carolina
are comparable to those in Delaware. While she enjoyed her current school, with
71 Trial Tr. at 10:00:58.

37
tuition paid by Maternal Grandparents, Mother is not sure whether Child would
attend school in Sussex County or might continue at her current school even though
neither Mother or Father can afford it. Dr. Finkelstein already noted that Father has
provided, and can provide, strong emotional support for Child. He could not
evaluate the same for Mother.
Child will do well in South Carolina, as she has in Delaware. The reality is
that if she does not go with Father to South Carolina, she is not able to be with
Mother until at least November, and when she is, it is unclear even to Mother
whether she would be in Millsboro with her stepfather or in Newark with Maternal
Grandparents.
Factor two favors Father and relocation.
3. The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the
nonrelocating individual and the child through suitable
visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial
circumstances of the parties.
Father wishes to move to South Carolina. He testified that it is approximately
eight hours from Wilmington to his new home and shorter from Millsboro. Father
proposes that Child spend half of the summers with Mother (or Maternal
Grandparents), some holidays, and other time as can be arranged. He also proposes
video calls to allow Child to keep in touch with relatives on Mother’s side.

38
Mother testified that she doesn’t have the funds to transport Child and that
allowing Child to relocate would prevent her from seeing Child. She did not testify
in response to Father’s suggestion of time with her parents.
Moves of similar distance to this situation are not uncommon. In T.A.. v. S.S.,
Judge Cooper allowed Mother to relocate to the Chicago area, twice the distance
that would be involved in Father’s move, where Father had an alcohol addiction and
Mother had the opportunity for employment in Illinois.72 It is fully possible to
preserve the relationship between Mother and Child by eventually awarding Mother
considerable time during the summers, school breaks, holidays, and additional time
during the year, without incurring unreasonable costs for the parties.
Factor three favors Father and relocation .
4. The child's preference, taking into consideration the age and
maturity of the child.
Child has differing preferences on relocation to each parent. She is
understandably excited about the move and her new home, and equally
disappointed about not seeing Maternal Grandparents often. She will miss her half-
sister and Mother if relocation is granted. She will miss her half-brother and Father
if relocation is denied. Child is of age-appropriate maturity and will do well under
either scenario.
Factor four is neutral and neither favors nor disfavors relocation .
72 T.A. v. S.S., File No. CN06-01832, Case No. 09-03392, Dkt. 71 (Cooper, J., Nov. 19, 2009).

39
5. Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of the
individual seeking the relocation, either to promote or thwart
the relationship of the child and the nonrelocating individual.
Father has discussed relocation with Mother for at least two years. Mother’s
documented text messages were supportive of Father’s plan to move, and suggested
that Mother and her husband also desired to move to South Carolina. However, at
trial Mother claims her support was “brainstorming,” equating it looking at hotels
in Hawaii.73 Mother claimed that it was her “13-year-plan” that would not occur
until her children were in college.74 The text messages introduced at trial do not
support her claims at trial.
The request to relocate was transparent and discussed in advance. Father had
thought through a proposed schedule for Mother to maintain contact after she is
released from prison. There was no evidence to suggest that Father was attempting
to thwart Mother’s relationship with Child.
Factor five favors Father and relocation .
6. Whether the relocation of the child will enhance the general
quality of life for both the individual seeking the relocation and
the child, including financial or emotional benefit or
educational opportunity.
Child’s quality of life with Father, her stepmother, and her half-brother would
be enhanced by the move to South Carolina. In Delaware, Father does not have job
73 Trial Tr. at 2:33:44.
74 Trial Tr. at 2:36:00.

40
as the business where he worked has been sold. He currently is in a rented tw0-
bedroom condominium. In South Carolina, his skills both as a heavy-equipment
operator and a rehabilitation counselor would be in greater demand than in
Delaware. He has purchased outright a larger home that would cost more than twice
what he would need to pay in Delaware for comparable housing..
Child’s quality of life with Mother is unknown at present. Her husband
intends for her to live in Millsboro, and to stay at home to focus on her recovery.
He is hopeful that she will improve. However, her husband also filed for custody in
June 2025, but settled with Mother on strict terms requiring her sobriety which she
was not able to maintain. He testified that he owes it to his daughter not to get
divorced. Hopefully he is correct. Mother was less sure of her living arrangements
and struggled with her plan if relocation were denied. She was unsure whether she
would live in Millsboro or in Newark with Maternal Grandparents. It was clear to
the Court that Mother was convinced that Father would not leave Delaware if his
request to relocate were denied.75
Factor six favors Father and relocation .
75 Father’s wishes as to relocation were clarified in his response to the Court’s question. As
regularly occurs in relocation case cases, Counsel (and sometimes the Court) will ask the movant,
“Will you move if the Court denies the request for relocation.” The answer invariably is “no”.
This is a Hobson’s Choice, not an actual option, for the movant. When the choice is move with
your child or “abandon” the Child, the answer is self-evident. For this reason, this judge requests
that the movant state his or her actual wishes before the close of testimony.

41
7. The reasons of each individual for seeking or opposing the
relocation.
Father has looked forward to the opportunity to move for the last two years.
He testified to a booming employment atmosphere, spacious houses, life on the
waterway, closeness to his and his wife’s family, and good schools.
Mother opposes Father relocating as it would significantly reduce her
opportunity to parent her daughter. She presently is facing the challenges of
recovery from alcoholism, a problem that has plagued her for years. But with her
newfound spiritual relationship, and the support therefrom, she is hopeful that she
will be stronger. The text messages introduced at trial showed that she was
supportive of a move and, at the time, she was anxious to leave the northeast for
South Carolina.
Father’s reasons for relocating are well-founded, thought-out, and
supportable. Mother’s reasons for opposing relocation are understandable, if less
developed than Father’s.
Factor seven favors Father and relocation .
8. Any other factor affecting the best interest of the child.
The strongest argument for denying relocation is the negative effect that it
would have on the relationship between Child and Maternal Grandparents.
Factor eight disfavors relocation.

42
B. Conclusion on Request to Relocate
Under the Current Order, the parties have joint legal custody. Father has
primary residential placement and final decision-making authority, largely in part
to address Mother’s inability to maintain sobriety. Father sought sole legal custody
in this modification petition and, of equal importance to Father, the ability to
relocate. The Court decided earlier in this opinion that modification is appropriate
and that it is in the best interest of Child for Father to have sole legal custody.
When one parent has sole legal custody, relocation is more akin to a change
in the contact schedule between the child and parents. The best interest factors still
apply, and the Delaware Legislature has mandated consideration of eight separate,
if somewhat overlapping, relocation factors. Each of these factors are compared
between the parents. Children have an interest in maintaining their relationships
with the important people in their lives, and that interest is considered under
relocation factors one and eight, in particular.
It is truly unfortunate that in this case the Maternal Grandparents would be
so negatively impacted by relocation, but the problem is directly tied to Mother’s
inability to remain sober. In deciding relocation, the Court cannot prohibit a parent
from moving. The question is whether the child is going with the moving parent.
In this case, if relocation is denied, Maternal Grandparents would have to prove that

43
Child would be dependent in both parents’ care. It is highly unlikely that they would
prevail against Father under the facts elicited at this trial.
Father offered the case of M. v. J.76 in support of Mother’s opposition to
relocation. In M. v. J., the judge denied relocation where the parties had joint legal
custody, Mother had moved to Boston, and “Mother’s lack of compliance with prior
Court orders compound[ed] the Court’s concerns that granting Mother’s requests
would have a deleterious impact on Father’s parenting time and relationship with
A.”77 In analyzing the relocation factors, the M. v. J. judge found that allowing the
child to relocate (as she already had done) was another example of Mother’s history
of thwarting the father-daughter relationship. This case is distinguishable from M.
v. J. In this case, sole custody has been awarded, Father has not violated any court
orders, and Mother has not had contact with Child in ten months.
Father also offered authority in support of his position. In the case of Ravin
v. Spears,78 the only binding precedent offered, the Delaware Supreme Court
affirmed a Family Court decision allowing a mother to relocate to Georgia. In Ravin,
the finding was more narrow and based on the scope of review. The Supreme Court
found no abuse of discretion where the mother (who proposed moving) offered a
reasonable arrangement whereby the father would have one-half of the summers,
76 M. v. J., 2025 WL 2475858 (March 5, 2025).
77 Id. at *3.
78 Ravin v. Spears, 224 A.3d 302 (Del. 2019).

44
winter break, and spring break. The Court noted that “When the determination of
the facts turns on the credibility of the witnesses who testified under oath before
the trial judge, this Court will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial judge.”79
Relocation cases are heavily fact dependent – arguably more so than routine custody
cases. The facts found in this case are based on the credibility of the testimony of
the trial witnesses, and they favor relocation.
Mother’s second case, T.P. v. A.P.,80 is persuasive authority from the Family
Court where a mother with sole legal custody and primary residential placement
requested to move to Georgia. The judge noted that “Father’s involvement in the
Child’s life, on the other hand, has been inconsistent.”81 In T.P., mother (who was
seeking to relocate) was committed to ensuring the child had visitation with the
father, despite the distance between Delaware and Georgia. Many of the facts in
T.G. are similar to this case under consideration.
As previously referenced, this case is most similar to T.A. v. S.S. decided by
Judge Cooper. In T.A., the father challenged mother’s request to relocate to Chicago.
Father had a recurring addiction issue. Mother had remarried and sought to move
with her husband more than twice the distance involved in the present case. Mother
did not yet have a job in the new area, but they had located a home, searched for
79 Id. at *2.
80 T.P. v. A.P., 2022 WL 22835351 (Del.Fam.Ct., Jan 25, 2022).
81 Id. at *8.

45
schools, and proposed a contact schedule that would provide the father with time
similar to Father’s proposal in the current case. Judge Cooper allowed relocation
and provided safeguards to ensure that the father remained sober.
This Court finds that T.A., T.P., and Ravin are closer to the facts in this case
than M. v. J. The Family Court is required to evaluate all of the facts, apply the law,
and make a decision – sometimes difficult as in this case – as to whether the
relocation is in the child’s best interest. All of the foregoing findings lead this Court
believe that relocation is in Child’s best interest and the request for relocation will
be approved.
* * * * * *
The Court would remiss if it did not note that the presentation by both
Counsel in this case was extraordinary. Each represented their clients assertively
but compassionately. Cross-examination was always respectful, and closing
arguments were candid and helpful. The Court appreciates, and is grateful for, the
skill that they brought to this case.

46
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THIS 12th day of June 2026:
1. The Petition for Custody Modification is GRANTED.
2. J---- S----- (“Father”) is awarded SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY and PRIMARY
RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT of V------ K------- (born April 11, 2019).
3. Parenting time for J------ K------- (“Mother”) is suspended during her
incarceration which is expected to be on or about November 4, 2026. After
release from incarceration, and unless otherwise agreed, Mother shall
have V------ from the Tuesday after Father’s Day through August 15th every
year.
4. The parties shall share holidays as follows:
Mother’s Day: Mother shall have Child every Mother’s Day weekend
from 7:00 p.m. on the Friday before Mother’s Day until 7:00 p.m. on the
Monday after Mother’s Day. (Father must inform V------’s school of her
absence for this holiday at the start of each school year).
Father’s Day: Father shall have Child every Father’s Day from 7:00 p.m.
on the Friday before Father’s Day until 8:00 a.m. on Father’s Day.
Other Holidays:
a. Mother shall have Child every Easter Break from the day after
school lets out until the day before school resumes.
b. Mother shall have Child in odd-numbered years for the
Thanksgiving Break from the day after school lets out until the day
before school resumes.
c. Mother shall have Child in even-numbered years for Christmas
Break from the day after school lets out until the day before school
resumes.
d. Mother shall have Child in odd-numbered years from
December 27th until the day before school resumes.

47
e. Mother shall have the extended weekends for Martin Luther
King Day, President’s Day, and Memorial Day.
5. Father shall be responsible for two-thirds of the cost of transportation and
Mother shall be responsible for one-third of the cost of transportation for
Child for contact periods with Mother.
6. The Request for Permission to Relocate is GRANTED.
7. J---- S----- is permitted to relocate to South Carolina with V------ K------- (born
4/11/19).
8. Cancelling contact: Except in emergency situations, parents must give one
another at least 24 hours advance notice when canceling a contact period.
9. Medical treatment and emergencies: If Child becomes seriously ill or
injured, each parent shall notify the other as soon as practicable. If Child
becomes ill or injured during one parent’s contact period, that parent shall
contact the other to secure treatment unless the situation is a medical
emergency.
10. Communication: Both parents shall be entitled to reasonable
communication with Child while she is in the other parent’s care (including
but not limited to video calls, telephone, e-mail, mail and text messaging).
Neither parent shall interfere with the communication between Child and the
other parent. Neither parent shall attempt to manipulate Child during their
calls.
11. School work: Parents shall provide time for Child to study and complete
homework assignments, even if the completion of work interferes with the
parents’ plans for her. Both parents are responsible for providing school
assignments and books to the other parent. Child must attend summer
school if necessary, regardless of which parent has Child during the summer
school period.
12. Relocation: Prior to a parent relocating their residence, consideration shall
be given to the effect the relocation may have on the existing contact
schedule. If the relocation may result in a change to Child’s school, travel
time to school, or extracurricular activities, or otherwise may adversely affect
Child’s best interest, the parent choosing to relocate shall obtain written
approval from the other parent or a Court Order prior to relocating.

48
13. Notice of change of address: Both parents shall give written notice to the
other parent immediately upon any impending change of address and/or
phone number. The written notice must include the new mailing address and
phone number (in the event the mailing address is a Post Office Box, the
written notice must include a physical address and/or directions to the new
residence), unless a restrictive order has been obtained from the Court. A
copy of the notice shall also be provided to the Family Court in the
appropriate county.
14. Nothing herein prevents the parties from changing this Order by mutual
agreement. However, if they are not in agreement, the terms of this Order
shall apply.
15. THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ENTERED AFTER A HEARING ON THE
MERITS. Therefore, any future modifications shall be made pursuant to 13
Del. C. § 729(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of June 2026.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.
/s/Michael W. Arrington
Honorable Michael W. Arrington
Judge
Date of Written Order: 6/12/26
Date E-Mailed to Counsel: 6/12/26