Anderson, S.A. v. Anderson, S.R.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SARAH A. ANDERSON,1 Petitioner BelowAppellant, v. SAMUEL R. ANDERSON, Respondent BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 554, 1999 Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County No. CN97-06107 Submitted: April 17, 2000 Decided: May 8, 2000 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and HARTNETT, Justices. ORDER This 8th day of May 2000, upon consideration of the appellant s opening brief and the appellee s motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: (1) Petitioner-appellant, Sarah A. Anderson ( Mother ), filed an appeal from the November 8, 1999 order of the Family Court denying her petition for modification of contact. In the petition, Mother sought to have the Family Court modify the custodial arrangement between her and respondentappellee, Samuel R. Anderson ( Father ), with respect to their minor daughter.2 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d), the names of the parties are pseudonyms selected by the Court. 1 In a prior Order, this Court ruled that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in granting Mother and Father joint custody of their daughter, with Mother as the primary (continued...) 2 Specifically, Mother sought permission from the Family Court to move with the parties daughter to Texas, where, she argued, she had a higher paying job waiting for her, she could live with her parents until she had saved enough money to buy a home of her own, and she and her child would enjoy a higher standard of living. The Family Court determined that the change in economic circumstances resulting from Mother s proposed move to Texas did not outweigh the emotional harm that could potentially be caused by the child s separation from her father. (2) In this appeal Mother claims that the Family Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in refusing to permit a modification of contact. This claim is based on Mother s contention that the Family Court improperly weighed the factors contained in the Model Relocation Act drafted by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. (3) Upon careful review of the record, we have determined that, to the extent the issues raised on appeal are factual, the record evidence supports the trial judge s factual findings; to the extent the errors alleged on appeal are attributed to an abuse of discretion, the record does not support those assertions; (...continued) residential parent. We also ruled that [a]s the child grows older or circumstances change, Mother should be free to seek a relocation without automatic loss of the child s primary residence. The child was approximately two years old at the time of the prior Order and is now approximately four years old. 2 -2- and to the extent the issues on appeal are legal, the trial judge committed no errors of law. Therefore, we conclude that the judgment of the Family Court should be affirmed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/Maurice A. Hartnett, III _________________________ Justice -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
