Background
Thomas Everly and Ella Everly filed cross-petitions in Delaware Family Court seeking modification of custody. After a two-day trial, the Family Court entered an August 29, 2025 order resolving the petitions and an October 10, 2025 order denying Thomas’s motion for reargument.
Thomas appealed, challenging the Family Court’s factual findings and application of the law. He also argued that the court improperly delegated his constitutional parental rights to a private therapist in connection with reunification with his estranged daughter, and alleged that Ella had not complied with the Family Court’s orders.
The Court’s Holding
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed both Family Court orders. After reviewing the trial transcript and admitted evidence, the court concluded that the Family Court’s factual findings were supported by the record and found no error in its application of the law.
Because Thomas had not presented his improper-delegation argument below, the Supreme Court reviewed it for plain error and found no error at all. The court relied on Thomas’s trial testimony acknowledging that reunification should be overseen by a professional experienced in high-conflict situations and that he was willing to follow therapeutic recommendations. Any claim that Ella failed to comply with existing orders must be pursued through a petition for a rule to show cause in Family Court.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s custody-modification and reargument orders because the factual findings were supported by the record and the law was properly applied.
- An argument not raised in Family Court was reviewed only for plain error, and Thomas’s own trial testimony defeated his claim that therapeutic involvement improperly delegated his parental rights.
- Alleged noncompliance with a Family Court order must be addressed through a rule-to-show-cause petition in that court, not as part of this appeal.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the deference Delaware appellate courts give to record-supported Family Court findings in custody disputes. It also underscores the importance of preserving constitutional objections at trial and shows that a parent’s express agreement with therapeutic safeguards can undermine a later challenge to those measures.