P. F. v. G. F. (In re T.F.)

• Decision Date: 15 June 2022
• Docket Number: CS13-02354,Petition 21-05039/21-14342
• Parties: P. F., Petitioner/Respondent, v. G. F., Respondent/Petitioner. In The Interests Of: T. F. (DOB --/--/09), K. F. (DOB -/--/15)
• Court: Delaware Family Court

P. F., Petitioner/Respondent,
v.
G. F., Respondent/Petitioner.

In The Interests Of: T. F. (DOB --/--/09), K. F. (DOB -/--/15)

No. CS13-02354

Petition No. 21-05039/21-14342

Family Court of Delaware, Sussex County

June 15, 2022

Petition to Modify Custody Rule to Show Cause

ORDER

JAMES G. MCGIFFIN JR., JUDGE

Before the HONORABLE JAMES G. MCGIFFIN JR., JUDGE of the Family Court of the State of Delaware:

On April 20 and May 20, 2022, the Court convened a Zoom hearing on the Petition to Modify Custody Order filed by P ------ F ------- (Father) against G-- F ------- (Mother) and the Petition - Rule to Show Cause filed by Mother against Father. Both actions relate to the Stipulation and Order Resolving Custody and Visitation entered January 22, 2020. The children who are the subject of the Order are T -----, born -------- --, 2009, and K---, born ----- --, 2015.

Father appeared represented by counsel, David Weidman. Mother appeared represented by counsel, David Gagne.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Father filed his Petition to Modify Custody Order on March 1, 2021. Mother filed her Answer, on May 22, 2021.^[1] Mother filed her Petition - Rule to Show Cause on June 15, 2021,

1

and Father filed his Answer on July 8, 2021. These matters were consolidated by Order of July 27, 2021.

THE ISSUE

Father asserts that the custody order should be modified because the provision addressing parenting coordination has been abused by Mother and the parent coordinator, and because the provision is unnecessary. To prevail Father must prove his factual claim and that modifying the Order serves the best interests of the children.^[2]

The Stipulation and Order states:

Parent Coordination. The parties agree to engage Dr Mary Vaughn as a coparent coordinator to resolve impasses or disagreements that may arise so as to avoid unnecessary litigation. Dr. Vaughn shall have the authority to determine the protocol to resolve such disagreements. Dr. Vaughn's determination is binding on the parties unless one files a petition for judicial resolution of a particular issue in which case Dr. Vaughn's determination shall serve as an interim order until/unless modified by the Court. Dr. Vaughn shall have the power (but not the obligation) to allocate her fees between the parents in the event that she believes her services were invoked improperly on a particular issue. The Parenting Coordinator shall attempt to have the parties agree but may make decisions resolving conflicts between the parents which do not affect the Court's exclusive jurisdiction to determine fundamental issues of custody and visitation if parents cannot agree. Each party specifically agrees that the Parenting Coordinator may make decisions regarding possible conflicts they may have and that such decisions are binding on the parties when made and will continue in effect, unless modified by the parties or the Court or set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction. No therapist-patient privilege is created by entry of this Order

Father's case is built on four claims. Father asserts that Dr. Vaughn overstepped her authority to define an impasse or disagreement, that she is functioning as a coparent counselor instead of a coparent coordinator, that Dr. Vaughn was not engaged to facilitate communication between the parties, and that Dr. Vaughn demonstrates bias against him.

2

THE FACTS

Father testified that he entered the agreement believing that the parent coordinator would become involved only in a "very serious matter." He and Mother communicate through the web-based Our Family Wizard program.

The parties did not call upon Dr. Vaughn for several months after the Stipulation and Order entered. When a disagreement arose about exchanges of the children at the change of parenting time, they turned to the parent coordinator and that issue, along with other issues, was quickly resolved.

Father took exception to Dr. Vaughn's decision to participate in the parties' selection of a mental health counselor for the children. He thought the parties could accomplish this task without Dr. Vaughn's help (and the resulting fee). He rejected Dr. Vaughn's direction to follow the process she established for making the decision. Dr. Vaughn responded to Father with a detailed explanation of her role and of the reasons for her involvement on this issue. Father disregarded Dr. Vaughn's direction and went directly to Mother about the counselor selection issue. Mother responded by sharing with Father her observation that the couple cannot "communicate in a healthy manner." Mother also pointed out to Father that the flurry of email messages between the parties did not resolve the issue but demonstrated a disagreement for which they agreed to use the services of Dr. Vaughn.

Eventually, Mother capitulated to Father's demand she send to him the names of three counselors. He selected a counselor and notified Mother. The parties discovered the selected counselor was unavailable. Father then criticized Mother for her adherence to Dr. Vaughn's...