Smith v. Guest

• Decision Date: 12 April 2011
• Docket Number: 2010.,No. 252,252
• Citation: 16 A.3d 920
• Parties: Lynn M. SMITH,1 Respondent Below, Appellant.v.Carol M. GUEST, Petitioner Below, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

16 A.3d 920

Lynn M. SMITH,1 Respondent Below, Appellant.

v.Carol M. GUEST, Petitioner Below, Appellee.

No. 252

2010.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2011.Decided: March 14, 2011.Reargument Denied April 12, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREWest CodenotesRecognized as Unconstitutional10 West's Del.C. § 5402

Court Below: Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, File No. CN04–08601, Petition No. 09–22068.Upon Appeal from the Family Court. AFFIRMED.Michael P. Kelly (argued), Daniel M. Silver, and Kate Roggio Buck, Esquires, of McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; for Appellant.Richard H. Morse, Esquire (argued), American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware, Wilmington, Delaware; Michael W. Arrington, Esquire, of Parkowski Guerke & Swayze, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; for Appellee.Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.JACOBS, Justice:

This case arises from new legislation enacted by the General Assembly following this Court's 2009 decision in Smith v. Gordon (“ Smith I ”), ² which involved the same dispute between the same parties. Respondent-below appellant, Lynn M. Smith (“Smith”), appeals from an April 23, 2010 Family Court order awarding joint custody of ANS, a minor child, to petitioner-below appellee, Carol M. Guest (“Guest”). The Family Court granted custody to Guest based on the new legislation enacted after Smith I—Senate Bill No. 84 (“SB 84”), codified at 13 Del. C. § 8–201.³ On appeal, Smith seeks reversal of the Family Court's judgment, claiming that SB 84 violates the United States and Delaware Constitutions, and that res judicata bars Guest's custody petition. Smith further claims that even if SB 84 is constitutional, the Family Court legally erred by applying that statute retroactively, and by considering facts that occurred before SB 84 was enacted. For the reasons next discussed, we conclude that SB 84 is constitutional, that the Family Court committed no legal error, and affirm its judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ever since their relationship ended in May 2004, Smith and Guest have battled for custody over ANS, who is Smith's adopted child.⁴ The facts underlying the parties' continued custody dispute are essentially those as recited in our Smith I opinion.⁵

Under the Delaware Uniform Parentage Act (“DUPA”),⁶ if a petitioner can establish that she or he has a legal parent-child relationship with a minor child, as defined by 13 Del. C. § 8–201, that petitioner is a legal “parent” who is entitled to seek custody of the child under 13 Del. C. § 721(a). ⁷ In Smith I, the Family Court concluded that Guest was not a legal “parent” under Section 8–201, “because she could not establish a legal mother-child relationship [since] she was neither the biological or adoptive mother.” ⁸ The Family Court found, however, that Guest had standing to petition for joint custody with Smith because Guest claimed to be a de facto parent of ANS.⁹

This Court reversed, holding that as a matter of law, a de facto parent did not have standing as a “parent” to file a custody petition.¹⁰ In Smith I, we noted that when the Delaware General Assembly adopted DUPA, it did not include a de facto parent within the statutory definition of “parent” because Section 8–201 did not expressly recognize de facto parent-child relationships.¹¹ Moreover, we held that that omission was “not inadvertent,” and that “[w]here the General Assembly enacts a comprehensive statutory scheme that reflects a public policy unambiguously to define the parent-child relationship as a legal relationship, any modifications in that policy must be made by the legislature.” ¹²

After we decided Smith I, the Delaware General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 84 (“SB 84”), which amended DUPA to include a de facto parent within the statutory definition of “parent,” thereby expressly recognizing de facto parent-child relationships.¹³ New Section 5 of SB 84 provided that the amendments to DUPA would apply retroactively,¹⁴ and new Section 6 provided that “[n]o Court decision based upon a finding that Delaware does not recognize de facto parent status shall have collateral estoppel or res judicata effect.” ¹⁵ Although Sections 5 and 6 were not codified in the Delaware Code, both parties agree (and we hold) that those provisions are legally a part of the amended statute.

On July 6, 2009, the day that SB 84 was enacted into law, Guest filed a new petition for custody in Family Court. Smith moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that SB 84 was unconstitutional, and that Guest's new custody petition was barred by res judicata. The Family Court denied Smith's motion, finding that SB 84 did not violate either the United States or the Delaware Constitution, and that res judicata was inapplicable.¹⁶ In deciding the constitutionality of SB 84, the court determined that it did not need to consider Sections 5 and 6 of SB 84, because those Sections had not been codified.¹⁷ Therefore, the Family Court considered only Sections 1–3 (which amended the definition of “parent-child relationship” in 13 Del. C. § 8–201) and found that those Sections were constitutional.¹⁸

Thereafter, Smith moved in limine to exclude certain evidence and testimony regarding events that occurred before July 6, 2009. Smith argued that because SB 84 was not “retroactive,” only events that post-dated SB 84's enactment could be considered. Alternatively, Smith moved in limine to exclude evidence and testimony regarding acts that occurred after May 2004, arguing that any interactions between Guest and ANS after that date had occurred pursuant to court orders that were “vacated” by our Smith I decision. The Family Court denied both in limine motions, concluding that although SB 84 had no (codified) retroactivity clause, the Sections that were codified demonstrated a legislative intent that the court should consider evidence antedating SB 84's enactment.¹⁹

In February 2010, the Family Court held a two-day hearing on Guest's custody petition. On April 23, 2010, that court entered an order and judgment determining that Guest was a de facto parent and awarding her joint legal and physical custody of ANS with Smith.²⁰ Smith appeals from that judgment.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Smith claims that the Family Court reversibly erred in granting Guest joint custody of ANS on three grounds. First, she challenges the constitutionality of SB 84. Second, she argues that the Family Court erroneously concluded that res judicata did not bar Guest's custody petition. Third, Smith contends that even if SB 84 is constitutional, the Family Court erred by applying Section 8–201 “retroactively.” We consider those claims in that sequence.

I. Is SB 84 Unconstitutional?

Smith first argues that SB 84 is unconstitutional under the United States and the Delaware Constitution. Her Delaware constitutional argument is that Sections 5 and 6 of SB 84 violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and alternatively, they violate the “single-subject” requirement. Her Federal constitutional claim is that SB 84 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Court reviews claims involving the constitutionality of a statute de novo.²¹

A. Are Sections 5 and 6 of SB 84 Effective Law?

As a predicate matter, this Court must first determine whether (uncodified) Sections 5 and 6 of SB 84 constitute operative Delaware law. Both Smith and Guest agree that they do. The Family Court held that in interpreting SB 84, it was not required to consider Sections 5 and 6, because although those Sections were included in the Historical and Statutory Notes of the final statute, they were not included in the codified text.²²

In so ruling, the Family Court erred. The General Assembly enacted SB 84 in its entirety, not just Sections 1–4.²³ That the Revisors (the Delaware Code's editors) ²⁴ decided not to codify Sections 5 and 6 of SB 84 does not render those sections legally nugatory or ineffective. The Code expressly states that “the Revisors shall not alter the sense, meaning or effect of any act of the General Assembly....” ²⁵ One possible explanation for their failure to codify is that the Revisors believed Sections 5 and 6 to be “construction clauses” ²⁶ whose omission was required by 1 Del. C. § 211(b).²⁷ But, even if that were the case, Sections 5 and 6 cannot be disregarded in interpreting SB 84, because to do so would ignore the General Assembly's express intent.²⁸

In Elliott v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Delaware, this Court held that “the Revisors' failure to incorporate [an] amendment into the 1974 revised Code does not void it. Having been duly passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor, the amendment is law.” ²⁹ Although Sections 5 and 6 of SB 84 did not “amend” any particular section of the Code, the Elliott rationale applies here with equal force. Once enacted by the legislature and signed by the Governor, the entirety of the bill becomes effective Delaware law.

Having determined that the entirety of the enacted bill, including Sections 5 and 6, must be considered in interpreting SB 84, we turn to the merits of Smith's constitutionality claims.

B. Does SB 84 Violate The Separation of Powers Doctrine?

Smith first challenges SB 84 on the ground that it violates the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers between the judicial and the legislative branches, by overturning our decision in Smith I. Smith points out that Section 5 makes the new definition of legal “parent” retroactive, and that Section 6 prohibits a court from holding that Smith I has preclusive effect in determining whether Guest is a legal “parent” of ANS. Read together, Smith contends, those sections violate Delaware's separation of powers requirement, because a legislature cannot dictate how a court should apply the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata when determining the effect of court judgments that have...