S.T. v. C.T.
| Decision Date | 20 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-10933,File No. CN18-03247 |
| Parties | S T , Petitioner, v. C T , Respondent. |
| Court | Family Court of Delaware |
ORDER ON PETITION FOR CUSTODY
David J. Facciolo, Esquire, 521 North West Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for Father
Gretchen S. Knight, Esquire, 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for Mother
On October 12, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on the Petition for Custody in the interest of S T (born 07/27/2003), A T (born / /2009), and N T (born / /2011) ("Children"). Petitioner S T ("Father"), represented by David J. Facciolo, Esquire, and Respondent C T ("Mother"), represented by Gretchen S. Knight, Esquire, participated in the hearing.
Based upon the evidence presented, the Court's decision is as follows.
On May 29, 2018, Mother filed a Petition for Protection from Abuse ("PFA") against Father.1 On June 15, 2018, Father filed a Petition for PFA against Mother.2 After Father's Petition for PFA was dismissed,3 and Mother's PFA was continued,4 the parties eventually consented on each petition.5 The PFA Order against Father required that Father not contact Mother or Children. The Order further required Father to pay temporary child support in the amount of $700.00 per month as wellas the mortgage payments on the marital residence. The PFA granted Mother temporary custody of the Children. The PFA Consent Orders expired on August 22, 2020.6
On May 22, 2020, Father filed a Petition for Custody seeking joint custody of the Children.7 On July 21, 2020, Mother filed an Answer to Petition for Custody and Counterclaim.8 Mother denied that Father's request for joint custody was in the Children's best interest, and argued that Father's visitation should be limited and supervised. Mother's counterclaim stated that she was seeking sole custody and primary placement of the Children. On July 30, 2020, Father filed an Answer to Counterclaim, arguing that joint custody would serve the best interests of the Children.9
The Petition for Custody was filed on May 22, 2020. The Children lived in Delaware for approximately fifteen years. Father continues to reside in New CastleCounty, Delaware. Delaware has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination as Delaware is the home state.10
Father offered testimony and had four additional witnesses, father's primary care doctor W B , D.O., Father's friend and business partner R D , Father's friend D M , and Father's friend J B . Mother testified and had three additional witnesses, the parties' oldest daughter A T (age 18), Mother's friend T B , and Mother's brother Y Z .
Mother and Father have four children, ages 18, 17, 11, and 9 years old. All of the children have resided solely with Mother for over two years, and aside from this litigation have not seen Father since May 28, 2018.
Father wishes to rebuild his relationship with the Children. Father would like joint custody and substantial visitation with the Children. Mother has serious concerns about the Children being forced to spend time with Father due to an extensive history of domestic violence perpetrated by Father against Mother and the Children. Mother wishes to have sole custody and that the Children have no more than telephonic visitation with Father.
Father provided testimony on his relationship with the Children before he left the marital residence. Father's testimony was contradicted by the evidence, the testimony from Mother and her witnesses, and the child interviews. Of particular impact, the parties' oldest child presented credible testimony based on her personal experience of Father's abuse while living with him for sixteen years.
Conversely, Father was less credible than other witnesses who testified on the same subjects. Mr. M 's testimony was minimally assistive. While he was able to testify that he had seen interactions between Father and the Children numerous times, the only activity he could recall witnessing was Father assisting the Children with their homework on one occasion.
According to Father's recollection of the events that transpired on May 28, 2018, Mother and Children were in the kitchen when Father got a phone call from the mother of his religious friend from Ukraine who wanted to Skype. Father stated that "for no reason" Mother picked up the phone and started talking to the person on Skype and when Father requested his phone back that Mother "basically made a provocation." Father testified that Mother started beating him up and was "losing . . . her mind" and he was afraid that she was going to kill him so he left the house. The police found Father at a gas station and arrested him. The police brought Father to the police station, but soon thereafter transported Father to the hospital.
At the hospital, Father's blood pressure was 249/129.11 However, Dr. B testified that Father has a history of high blood pressure including in all visits to his office since the date of the alleged abuse. Due to Father's allegations that Mother had physically attacked him, the emergency room completed an Interpersonal Violence Documentation Tool. This document contains Father's description of events and documents all places where Father had abrasions and bruises, but contains no finding of abuse. The emergency department records note "New Castle County police states that the patient's story is not true and he has changed story multiple times."12
Father's Exhibit 1 recounts the details in dramatic fashion. The emergency department records state and then a description of how Father stated Mother and Adult Daughter attacked him. Respondent's Ex. 1 at 10-11. When the Court asked Father who the partner was that he was on the phone with, Father stated "it was an FBI agent." The Court questioned Father on his earlier testimony that the person on the phone was a religious leader.Father, in response, stated that the "mother" on the phone was the religious leader and her son is the FBI agent.
Father was charged with false impersonation of a police officer in connection with the incident that occurred on May 28, 2018. Father testified that the police went through his wallet and found an "expired" International Police Association card which resulted in the arrest. The cards that Father provided to the Court do not have an expiration date on them. Father testified that he never showed the police the identification that Mother introduced as Respondent's Exhibit 2, but that Mother provided those documents to the police when they went to the marital residence the following day. Father testified that he has two different passports because his name is very common in Russia and he was originally mailed one that contained the wrong picture and birth date.13 However, the exhibits have no expiration date, multiple birthdates, and the same picture. Father testified that he has not returned the incorrect passport because he has not been back in Russia to do so. Father's tortured explanations strain credulity.
Mother's description of the incident on May 28, 2018 differs substantially from Father's version. According to Mother, Father was talking on the phone and passed it to Mother to talk with a family friend. When asked how things were going withher life and her family, she told the friend on the speaker phone that Father's drinking had become severe; that Father had disconnected both Mother's phone and the adult daughter's phone; that Father had become very violent and aggressive; and that Father had removed her access to credit cards. Father heard the last part of the conversation after returning from the bathroom. Father became very angry, took the phone from her, and threw the phone on the ground, and started pushing and yelling at her. Mother testified that the adult daughter called the police and Father ran to the porch. Mother stated that when the police showed up, her blood pressure was high and she was taken to the hospital. Mother stated that neither she nor the adult daughter put their hands on Father. The adult daughter's description of the incident coincides with Mother's.
The parties moved into the marital residence in 2014. Prior to the move, they lived in one of three connected condominiums in Wilmington. Mother and the Children lived in one condominium, Father lived in a second, and the third was used for storage and to host guests.
Father outlined a "typical father-child relationship" when he lived with the children. According to Father, the family belonged to two Orthodox churches in Wilmington that they attended regularly. The family would go on vacation three times per year, visit relatives, go fishing, go hiking, and work together in Father'slibrary. Father introduced photographs of Father with the Children.14 Mr. D 's and Mr. B 's limited testimony were offered to support Father's version of the story although neither of them were with Father on any of the vacations. In fact, Mr. D was clear that his involvement with Father was limited to business transaction in New York.
Mother and the adult daughter described in detail a much different situation. According to Mother, the family did indeed go on vacations and occasionally partake in activities with Father, while simultaneously suffering from daily abuse by Father. Father yelled at Mother and the Children every day. Father called Mother and the Children names and continuously insulted them. Father pushed Mother countless times in front of the Children, as well as pushed the Children many times. The Children were afraid to go in the kitchen and they would hide in their rooms and lock the doors, and Father...
To continue reading
Request your trial