Opinion
File No. CN18-05224Pet. No. 18-26783
02-21-2019
D------ E. B------, Petitioner, v. B---- L. P---- JR., Respondent.
Petitioner, pro se Respondent, represented by Andrew W. Gonser, Esq.
PETITION FOR CUSTODY ORDER Petitioner, pro se
Respondent, represented by Andrew W. Gonser, Esq. Buckworth, J.
INTRODUCTION
The matters before the Court are a Petition for Custody ("Petition") filed on September 5, 2018, by D------ E. B----- ("Mother"), pro se, against B---- L. P---- Jr. ("Father"), represented by Andrew W. Gonser, Esq., and a Counterclaim for Custody filed with Father's Answer ("Answer and Counterclaim") on October 1, 2018. The matters concern the parties' minor child: P------ A. P---- ("the Child"), born on October 15, 2010.
Pet. for Custody, D.I. 1.
Answ. and Countercl., D.I. 5.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 5, 2018, Mother filed her Petition alleging that since the parties' separation in 2015, they shared custody of the Child. Mother contended this arrangement worked well for all; however, Father decided he should keep the Child full-time. Mother wished for the Court to enter an order awarding shared custody and claimed the parties could work out a schedule if changes were required. Father filed his Answer and Counterclaim on October 1, 2018. Father denied Mother's allegations and believed joint legal custody and primary residential placement with him was in the Child's best interest. Father requested the Court enter an order providing the parties with such an arrangement. The parties appeared for Mediation on October 11, 2018; however, they could not resolve the Matter. The Court entered an Interim Order of Contact ("Interim Order"), whereby the parties were to have joint legal custody of the Child, Father was to have had primary residential placement, and Mother was to have visitation on alternating weekends, from Friday after school until Monday morning, with pick-up and drop-off at the Child's school, and a dinner visit on Thursdays from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. On all other terms, including holiday visitation, the parties followed the Standard Visitation Guidelines.
Pet. for Custody, D.I. 1. Mother would have the Child on Monday and Tuesday and Father would have the Child on Wednesday and Thursday, and they would alternate weekends.
Id.
Id.
Answ. and Countercl., D.I. 5.
Id.
Id.
Interim Order of Contact, entered Oct. 12, 2018, D.I. 11.
Id.
Id.
The parties appeared before the Court to testify and submit evidence on Friday, February 15, 2019. Following the trial, the Court reserved judgment on the matter and directed both parties to continue following the Interim Order.
DISCUSSION
For judicial economy, the Court will not restate the testimony at trial. Under 13 Del. C. § 722(a), this Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child under the best interest of the child.
Pursuant to 13 DEL. C. § 722 (2004),
(a) The Court shall determine the legal custody and residential arrangements for a child in accordance with the best interests of the child. In determining the best interests of the child, the Court shall consider all relevant factors including: (1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements; (2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian(s) and residential arrangements; (3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabiting in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests; (4) The child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community; (5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under § 701 of this title; (7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title; and (8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.
(b) The Court shall not presume that a parent, because of his or her sex, is better qualified than the other parent to act as a joint or sole legal custodian for a child or as the child's primary residential parent, nor shall it consider conduct of a proposed sole or joint custodian or primary residential parent that does not affect his or her relationship with the child.
(1) The wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his or her custody and residential arrangements;
The Court finds Factor One (1) supports Mother's requests, as Father's position is unwarranted and inappropriate. Mother requests shared residential placement, with two (2) overnights during the week and alternating overnight visitation. Mother has no preference on which two (2) days she would split with Father. Mother also requests a right-of-first-refusal if either party cannot care for the Child, testifying about an occasion in October 2018 when Father left the Child in the care of Paternal Grandparents for a week while he traveled for work. Father wishes for the Interim Order to become final for the school year and will share the Child on a week-on-week-off schedule during the summer months.
Mother testified that since 2015, the parties operated under a shared placement schedule with no issues to the Child or them. Mother provided the Court with an e-mail chain in which Father asked if she objected to the arrangement, and during his testimony, Father acknowledged they operated under a shared schedule. On cross-examination, Mother testified Father expressed concern with the Child's schedule, but as it relates to extracurricular activities, not schooling. Mother acknowledged she entertained Father's proposed changes but later opposed it when Father refused a request for her to pick the Child up from school.
Pet'r Ex. 1.
Father believed a shared schedule was inappropriate during the 2017-18 school year. During the trial, Father testified he discussed his concerns that the Child was not going to bed on time, was behind in reading, his writing was not where it should be, his homework was incomplete when with Mother, and Mother was often late to the Child's baseball and football practices. Mother is employed for ------- in Wilmington and often works until 5:00 p.m., while Father is employed at ---- -- ------- in ------. Unlike Mother, Father's job at ---- -- ------- offers him the flexibility to spend time with the Child and transport him from practices. According to Father, under the Interim Order's schedule, the Child has more time to study, is not late to extracurricular activities, his grades are improving, and his writing and reading are getting better. Father believes the Child has stability and has adjusted to this schedule. Father also shared concerns with Mother's decision-making in a previous relationship and the Child's safety, though Mother has since ended that relationship.
According to Father, his work schedule is 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., but as long as his work is done, he has the flexibility to transport the Child to school and extracurricular activities.
The Court finds this factor supports Mother's position for a shared arrangement. Father's objections are unwarranted. As the Court will discuss below, Father submitted no evidence to show the Child has improved or flourished under the Interim Order. Testimony shows Father's concerns stem for Mother's ability to transport the Child to football and baseball practice, rather than issues with school. Father has the flexibility with work to transport the Child to extracurricular activities, to volunteer at school, and to participate in other activities with the Child; however, no evidence was presented to show Mother is not an active parent. Father's testimony proved otherwise, as he stated she attends parent/teacher conferences, school activities, ninety (90) to ninety-nine (99) percent of the Child's sport extracurricular activities, and provided equal financial support when the parties shared custody. The Court is not inclined to limit Mother's ability to have a substantial relationship with the Child because she works until 5:00 p.m. If Father has more flexibility, he can co-parent with Mother and help transport the Child. Further, Father complained of the Child's safety due to Mother's ex-boyfriend, "M------" being around the Child; however, Father had no concerns when he rented his basement to a foreign exchange student from the ---------- -- --------, who he did not previously know. Since Father's position is unwarranted, the Court finds factor one (1) supports Mother.
(2) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian(s) and residential arrangements;
Factor Two (2) is neutral, as the Court did not interview the child due to his young age and will reach a decision, in the best interest of the Child, without consideration of this factor. (3) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parents, grandparents, siblings, persons cohabiting in the relationship of husband and wife with a parent of the child, any other residents of the household or persons who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
Factor Three (3) is neutral since the Child appears to have a positive relationship with everyone who significantly affects his best interests. Mother and Father appear to have a positive relationship with the Child. While Father's flexible work schedule allows him the ability to volunteer and coach the Child; Mother also is active. The Child also appears to have great relationships with extended family, as Maternal Grandparents live in ----------, Maternal Great Grandmother resides across from the Child's school, and Paternal Grandfather and Step-Grandmother, Paternal Great Aunts and Uncles, and Paternal Uncle all live in the area. Mother resides with her boyfriend, J----- M------ S---- ("Mr. S----"). The Court heard no testimony regarding Mr. S----'s relationship with the Child; however, it has no reason to doubt it is negative.
Since the Child has positive relationships with everyone who significantly affect his best interests, the Court finds factor three (3) is neutral. (4) The child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community;
Factor Four (4) supports Mother's position for a shared placement arrangement, Father failed to provide evidence to show the Child has improved with him having primary placement, and the Court is not inclined to take away Mother's ability to have a substantial relationship with the Child because she works until 5:00 p.m. The Child does not need to adjust to another school or community since both parents reside in the same school district and zip code.
The Child is in second grade, enrolled in the ------- --------- ------- at ------ ---------- ------ ("------"). As discussed, Father began to raise issues with the parties' shared schedule, in part, because the Child was struggling in reading and writing, and was not completing his homework. Father testified the Child's performance in school has improved since he has had primary residential placement; however, the record does not reflect this. First, Father submitted no evidence showing the Child struggled academically while in Mother's care. Second, Mother provided the Court with the Child's 2017-18 and 2018-19 report cards, indicating there has been no real change in the Child's academics, either positive or negative. For example, during the last marking period of the 2017-18 school year, when the parties still shared custody, the Child received grades of "Meets Proficiency" or "Near Proficiency" in Language Arts/Reading, and through the first two (2) marking periods of the 2018-19 school year, received grades of "Minimal Proficiency" or "Approaching Proficiency." Father's work schedule may enable him to spend more time on the Child's homework; however, the Court is not convinced the Child flourishes with Father.
See Pet'r Ex. 3, Report Cards for the 2017-18 school year, and 2018-19 school year.
Id. Again, in Language Arts/Writing, the Child received grades of "Near Proficiency" or "Below Proficiency" in marking period four but has only received grades of "Minimal Proficiency" or "Approaching Proficiency" in marking period two of the 2018-19 school year.
Another issue, perhaps more important than academics to Father is the Child's sporting and extracurricular activities. The Child plays baseball and football, and Father has coached several of the Child's teams. The Child also participates in an afterschool computer class. During trial, Father testified the Child expressed a desire to participate in Boy Scouts, play tennis, and swim in the summer. Father alleged at numerous times he has had to pick up the Child on Mother's day to get him to practices, due to her work schedule. Father also acknowledged Mother attends the Child's school activities and ninety (90) to ninety-nine (99) percent of the Child's sporting events. As discussed, the Court is not inclined to strip Mother of her right to spend substantial time with the Child simply due to her work schedule not allowing her to transport the Child to practices. Father coaches the Child's teams, there is no reason he cannot help transport the Child until Mother gets off work.
Mother resides in a three (3) bedroom mobile home with Mr. S----, who also has a child, while Father resides in the former marital home. Both reside in the same zip code, so the Child can still attend school at ------. As long as Mother provides adequate sleeping arrangements for the Child, and notifies Father if she moves, the Court sees no issue with the Child adjusting to living with both parties.
(5) The mental and physical health of all individuals involved;
Factor five (5) is neutral, as the Court finds neither party suffers from mental or physical health issues that would impair their ability to care for the Child. The Child suffers from no mental or physical health impairments. Father only suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"). Mother attempted to argue Father failed to seek medical attention when the Child had an infection of his ear after he got it pierced, and Father fails to properly groom the Child, though the Court found no issue in Father's care. During her case-in-chief, Mother testified her mental and physical health is good; however, on cross-examination Mother admitted to having issues with anxiety and depression, but has not been on medication for over three (3) years. Father testified he was surprised by Mother's testimony regarding her mental health. According to Father, while the parties were together, Mother expressed suicidal thoughts and ---- ---- ------ advised her to enter a three (3) month program. Mother also disclosed she previously sought mental health therapy in Philadelphia, and Father saw Facebook posts in which Mother expressed a feeling of not wanting to get out of bed.
See Pet'r Ex. 4. The Court finds no issue with the ear infection, as both shared custody. In addition, Mother could have groomed the Child, but instead decided to wait until Court to raise the issue.
Mother admitted to her struggles with anxiety and depression, and she sought medical help, at least in the form of medication; however, there is no reason to believe Mother's mental health impairs her ability to provide adequate care to the Child. Father also has no mental or physical health concerns; therefore, this factor is neutral. (6) Past and present compliance by both parents with their rights and responsibilities to their child under §701 of this title;
According to 13 Del. C. §701 (a): "The father and mother are the joint natural guardians of their minor child and are equally charged with the child's support, care, nurture, welfare and education. Each has equal powers and duties with respect to such child, and neither has any right, or presumption of right or fitness, superior to the right of the other concerning such child's custody or any other matter affecting the child. . . ."
Factor Six (6) is neutral, as both provide adequate financial support to the Child; though the Court notes both have to communicate more effectively for the Child's best interest, and Father's credibility is in question following his testimony regarding child care. During her testimony, Mother testified Father has never paid Court-ordered child support, which is true; however, both parties have provided adequate support to the Child. When the parties had a shared placement arrangement, they split costs for the Child's baseball, football, and other school and extracurricular activities. On direct-examination, Father testified the Child has medical insurance under Mother's plan, and Father provides a secondary policy for vision and dental. According to Father, he schedules and transports the Child to 90% of medical appointments, and he often pays for the costs associated with doctor visits. Father also testified Mother asked him to pay for the Child's daycare, but on cross-examination, Father admitted ---- -- ------- issues him a $200.00 credit per month for daycare
As discussed, an issue for Father was Mother's involvement and ability to transport the Child to practices. Father testified Mother attends most of the Child's baseball and football games, and school activities but her work schedule limits her ability to transport the Child to practices. Father is very involved in the Child's activities, as he has coached the Child's baseball teams, and was an assistant coach for football. Father's work schedule allows him to volunteer at ------, which allows him more of an opportunity to communicate with the Child's teachers; though Mother is active, attending parent/teacher conferences. Mother exercises her dinner visits, though she cannot pick up the Child until 6:00 p.m., and when offered extra time with the Child, Mother generally takes it.
Father testified he offered Mother additional time on the day of the trial because the Child was off from school, but she declined it because she had prior engagements. The Court finds this is a non-issue and should not be used against Mother.
The parties' ability to effectively communicate appears to lack at times. For example, Mother failed to inform him she moved in with Mr. S----. Mother also objected to Father's care of the Child, and waited until Court to argue it, instead of addressing it herself or with Father. Likewise, text messages between the parties show Father first asked Mother to care for the Child on the week of October 22nd, when he was scheduled to travel for work; however, he later changed this arrangement but failed to notify Mother until October 21, 2018. The text messages also indicate Father failed to provide Mother with the Child's Chinese school work. Father also lacks a willingness to work with Mother on providing additional days with the Child, despite Mother's effort to work with Father.
Pet'r Ex. 2.
On October 22, 2018, Father wrote he did not think to send Mother new Chinese phrases despite receiving it from his teacher the week before. See Id.
Father did no show a willingness to provide Mother with additional visits with the Child, while Mother showed a willingness to cooperate with Father during the trial.
The Court reminds both that, regardless of legal custody, each parent has the right to receive, on request, from the other, whenever practicable in advance, all material information about the Child's progress in school, medical treatment, significant developments in the Child's life, school activities and conferences, special religious events and other activities in which parents may wish to participate and each parent and the child has a right to reasonable access to the other by telephone and mail. The testimony and evidence show both care and love the Child and participate in the Child's life. Father has been fortunate to have the flexibility in his schedule to volunteer at school, and other activities, he is not justified to fault Mother, who also tries to attend school and extracurricular events. Both provide adequate financial support to the Child, though Father's failure to disclose ---- -- ------- offers a childcare credit for $200.00 per month showed he lacked credibility. Finally, both parties must communicate more effectively, and co-parent for the Child's best interest. Father should be fostering a relationship with Mother, rather than attempting to limit contact, and Mother should communicate events and changes that could also affect the Child.
13 Del. C. §727(a).
Factor Six (6) is neutral because both parties are active, and provide support to the Child. Both need to work on effectively communicating with each other in the best interest of the Child. Despite the Court's finding, it notes Father's credibility is in question due to the above-mentioned fact.
(7) Evidence of domestic violence as provided for in Chapter 7A of this title;
The Court has no concerns with regarding domestic violence by the parties; therefore, Factor Seven (7) is neutral; however, Mother bolstered her credibility with her testimony regarding a past incident of domestic violence with Father. Mother testified the parties were involved in a domestic violence incident six (6) years ago, where the parties were arrested and charged with Offensive Touching following an argument that turned physical; however, the charges were dropped. The Court notes both of the parties' criminal histories show they were arrested and charged with Offensive Touching on July 24, 2012, and both have a disposition of nolle prosequi on September 18, 2012.
The Court has no concerns about domestic violence; therefore, this factor is neutral; however, the Court notes Mother's testimony proved she was a credible witness. (8) The criminal history of any party or any other resident of the household including whether the criminal history contains pleas of guilty or no contest or a conviction of a criminal offense.
The Court finds Factor Eight (8) neutral since Mother's, Father's, and Mr. S----'s criminal histories only show convictions for minor, non-DUI offenses; therefore, the Court will not consider it in deciding custodial and visitation arrangements.
CONCLUSION
In deciding issues pertaining to custody and visitation under 13 DEL. C. § 722, this Court must balance the best interest factors. The Court has also held that some factors may be given more weight than others.
See Ross v. Ross, 992 A.2d 1237, 2010 WL 1404220 (Del. Apr. 7, 2010) (unpublished table decision).
Ross citing Fisher v. Fisher, 691 A.2d 619, 623 (Del. 1997) (noting that "[t]he amount of weight given to one factor or combination of factors will be different in any given proceeding. It is quite possible that the weight of one factor will counterbalance the combined weight of all other factors and be outcome determinative in some situations.")
According to the § 722 factors analyzed in the preceding paragraphs, the Court finds it is in the best interest of the Child for the parties to have joint legal custody and shared residential placement. Father's request for primary residential placement is unwarranted and unproven. The evidence provided by Mother showed no improvement or decrease in the Child's academics, and Father failed to submit evidence to support his position. The Court is not inclined to limit Mother's ability to spend time with the Child simply because she has an issue transporting the Child to baseball or football practices. Father can transport the Child, and the parties should co-parent for the Child's best interest. THEREFORE, under 13 Del. C. § 722 the Court orders:
1. The parties shall have joint legal custody of the Child.
a. The parties shall decide issues pertaining to the Child's nurture, welfare, and education together, and both shall share information relating to the Child.
2. The parties shall have shared residential placement with the Child.
a. Starting the week of February 25, 2019, Father shall have the Child overnight on Monday and Tuesday and Mother shall have the Child overnight on Wednesday and Thursday.
b. The parties shall continue to alternate overnight weekend visitation from Friday after school or after daycare if the Child is not in school, until Monday drop-off at school or daycare if the Child does not have school.
c. This schedule shall continue in accordance with the Interim Order thus whichever party was set to visit with the Child on the weekend of March 1, 2018, shall continue to have it.
d. Exchanges shall occur in the same manner as the Interim Order unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.
3. The parties shall have a right-of-first-refusal if the other cannot care for the Child due to work or other travel.
a. The party traveling shall notify the other in with reasonable notice and allow the other the opportunity to exercise their right-of-first-refusal.
4. Unless otherwise agreed upon, the parties shall have holiday visitation under the Standard Visitation Guidelines, attached as Exhibit A.
a. Mother shall have holiday visitation with the Child on the holidays in Column One (1) in 2019, 2021, 2023, and so on. And she shall have holiday visitation with the Child on the holidays in Column Two (2) in 2020, 2022, 2024, and so on.
b. Father shall have holiday visitation with the Child on the holidays in Column One (1) in 2020, 2022, 2024, and so on. And he shall have holiday visitation with the Child on the holidays in Column Two (2) in 2019, 2021, 2023, and so on.
5. Each parent shall be entitled to two (2) non-consecutive weeks of summer vacation with the Child. Each parent shall give at least thirty (30) days written notice to the other parent prior to the first parent exercising their vacation.
6. If Mother cannot transport the Child to an extracurricular activity due to her work schedule, and she cannot find adequate alternate transportation Father may transport the Child to and from a mutually agreed upon extracurricular activity.
7. The parties are free to mutually agree to additional or different terms regarding custody and visitation.
8. Since this Order is entered after a full hearing on the merits, any future modifications thereof shall be made under 13 Del. C. § 729(c).
Reasonable under the circumstances means once the parent becomes aware that he or she must travel for work or another reason.
Section 729(c) provides:
(c) An order entered by the Court after a full hearing on the merits concerning the legal custody of a child or his or her primary residence may be modified only as follows:
(1) If the application for modification is filed within 2 years after the Court's most recent order concerning these matters, the Court shall not modify its prior order unless it finds, after a hearing, that continuing enforcement of the prior order may endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair his or her emotional development.
(2) If the application for modification is filed more than 2 years after the Court's most recent order concerning these matters, the Court may modify its prior order after considering:
13 Del. C. § 729(c).a. Whether any harm is likely to be caused to the child by a modification of its prior order, and, if so, whether that harm is likely to be outweighed by the advantages, if any, to the child of such a modification;
b. The compliance of each parent with prior orders of the Court concerning custody and visitation and compliance with his or her duties and responsibilities under § 727 of this title including whether either parent has been subjected to sanctions by the Court under § 728(b) of this title since the prior order was entered; and
c. The factors set forth in § 722 of this title.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
Mark D. Buckworth, Judge 16 MDB/mac 2/18/19 cc: D------ E. B
Andrew W. Gonser, Esq.
File
Exhibit A
1. Holidays: Mother shall have the Child on the holidays in Column 1 in odd-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in the even-numbered years. Father shall have the Child on the holidays in Column 1 in the even-numbered years and the holidays in Column 2 in odd-numbered years: Column 1 Column 2 Easter or other religious holidays Memorial Day Fourth of July Labor Day Halloween Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day Christmas Eve With the exception of Christmas and Halloween contact, holiday contact shall be from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. the day of the holiday. Halloween contact shall begin at 5 p.m. and end at 8 p.m. on Halloween. Christmas Eve contact shall begin at 6 p.m. on December 24th and end at noon on December 25th. Christmas Day contact shall begin at noon on December 25th and end at 6 p.m. on December 26th. When a holiday falls on a Monday immediately following a contact weekend, the parent that had contact for the weekend shall be entitled to keep the Child continuously from 6 p.m. Friday until 6 p.m. Monday. 2. Mother's/Father's Day: On Mother's Day and Father's Day, no matter whose turn for contact, the Child shall be with the parent whose holiday is being celebrated from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. 4. Late pick-up: The residential parent shall have the Child ready for pick-up at the start of all visitation periods. The Child and the parent have no duty to wait for the non-residential parent to arrive for visitation more than thirty (30) minutes, unless notified. The non-residential parent who arrives more than thirty (30) minutes late without prior notification for a particular visitation, forfeits that visitation, unless the other parent agrees otherwise. 5. Drop-off: The non-residential parent will not return the Child early from visitation unless the parents agree to a different drop-off time in advance. The residential parent or other adult well-known to the Child must be present when the Child are returned from visitation. 6. Canceling contact: Except in emergency situations, the non-residential parent must give one another at least twenty-four (24) hours advance notice when canceling a visitation period. 7. Medical treatment and emergencies: If the child becomes ill or injured, each parent shall notify the other parent as soon as practicable. If the Child become ill or injured during visitation, the non-residential parent shall contact the residential parent to secure treatment unless the situation is a medical emergency. 8. Telephone/Mail: Neither parent shall interfere with the communication between the Child and the other parent. Long distance calls from an out-of-town parent shall be at that parent's expense. 18 9. School work: Parents shall provide time for Child to study and complete homework assignments, even if the completion of work interferes with the parent's plans for the Child. Both parents are responsible for providing all of the school assignments and books to the other parent. Summer school which is necessary for a Child must be attended, regardless of which parent has the Child during the summer school period. 10. Extracurricular activities: Regardless of where the Child are living, their continued participation in extracurricular activities, school related or otherwise, should not be interrupted. The parent with whom the Child are staying shall be responsible for providing transportation to activities scheduled during contact with that parent. Each parent shall provide the other parent with notice of all extracurricular activities, complete with schedules and the name, address and telephone number of the activity leader, if available. 11. Relocation: Upon relocation of the Child from the State of Delaware, the parents should attempt to agree to a modified visitation schedule. If the parents cannot agree, the parent who is moving shall file a petition asking the Court to modify the visitation schedule. The Court may consider the allocation of transportation expenses. 12. Notice of change of address: Both parents shall give written notice to the other parent immediately upon any impending change of address and/or phone number, unless a restrictive order has been obtained by the Court. A copy of the notice shall also be provided to the Family Court, New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801.