Hendrix v. Hendrix
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE M. GERARDINE HENDRIX, Respondent BelowAppellant, v. LESTER E. HENDRIX, Petitioner BelowAppellees. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' No. 102, 2004 Court Below: Family Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County No. CN03-06382 Submitted: January 6, 2005 Decided: January 27, 2005 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 27th day of January 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: (1) The respondent-appellant, M. Gerardine Hendrix (AMother@), appeals from a decision of the Family Court granting joint and equal custody of her two minor children to the petitioner-appellee, Lester E. Hendrix (AFather@). Mother contends that the Family Court considered the best interest factors under 13 Del. C. ' 722(a) in a cursory manner and ignored certain aspects of her testimony regarding the children=s best interest. We conclude that the Family Court properly applied the best interest factors. Accordingly, we affirm. (2) The general background of this case was set forth in this Court=s opinion addressing Mother=s direct appeal.1 In that appeal, we ordered the Family Court to perform A[a] complete best interest analysis [as] required by 13 Del. C. ' 722(a).@2 Mother=s instant appeal concerns the Family Court=s custody decision rendered upon remand from this Court. (3) The scope of this Court=s review of a Family Court judgment includes a review of both law and facts.3 If the Family Court correctly applied the law, we review under an abuse of discretion standard.4 The Family Court=s factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.5 To the extent the Family Court=s judgment implicates rulings of law, this Court=s review is de novo.6 (4) The Family Court complied with this Court=s mandate on remand by performing a best interest analysis as required by 13 Del. C. ' 722(a). The present record shows that the Family Court properly applied the best interest factors in 1 Hendrix v. Hendrix, No.102, 2004, 2004 Del. LEXIS 383 (Del. Aug. 30, 2004). 2 Id. at *4. 3 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 4 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186-87 (Del. 1991) (citing W. v. W., 339 A.2d 726, 727 (Del. 1975)). 5 Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 6 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 2 determining that joint and equal custody was in the children=s best interest. The Family Court considered each best interest factor and weighed the parties= respective evidence pertaining to each factor. The inferences and deductions made by the Family Court were supported by the record and were the product of an orderly and logical deductive process.7 Further, the Family Court, as the sole trier of fact in the present case, was entitled to give Mother=s testimony as much or as little weight as it found to be worthy.8 Thus, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the Family Court. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry DuPont Ridgely Justice 7 Solis, 468 A.2d at 1279. 8 Walls v. State, 560 A.2d 1038, 1047 (Del. 1989). 3 4
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.
