Summary
This Delaware Supreme Court per curiam order reviews a Family Court decision affirming a commissioner's grant of a protection from abuse (PFA) order against Eric Larson in favor of Cindy Gibson. The underlying dispute centers on allegations that Larson followed, chased, and sexually coerced Gibson, prompting the PFA petition. The Supreme Court addresses Larson's appeals regarding the statutory definition of abuse, the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, and his unpreserved constitutional challenges to the PFA statute. The Court ultimately affirms the lower court's decision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties were in a "substantive dating relationship" within the meaning of 10 Del. C. §1041(2) for jurisdictional purposes.
- Whether the commissioner’s findings that Larson’s conduct constituted abuse under §§1041(1)(b),(d),(h) were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Whether the Family Court properly extended the ex parte protective order beyond the statutory thirty‑day limit.
Holdings
- The court held that the parties were in a substantive dating relationship, as established by the evidence of cohabitation, shared keys, gifts, and ongoing sexual interaction.
- The court affirmed that Larson’s chasing of Gibson, the threats, and the coerced oral sex satisfy the statutory elements of abuse under subsections (b), (d), and (h).
- The court held that the extensions were permissible because Larson consented to the initial extensions and later extensions were attributable to procedural complexities; thus no statutory violation occurred.
- The court declined to consider the constitutional challenge, finding that the issue was not fairly presented to the Family Court and therefore not preserved for appellate review.
Key quotations
“The commissioner concluded that Mr. Larson “chased Ms. [Gibson] twice and that his actions during both chases” constituted abuse under subsections (b), (d), and (h) of Section 1041(1).”
“The record does not reflect that the commissioner used the bench card as “substantive evidence,” and we therefore find no merit to this argument.”
Factual background
The parties engaged in a consensual sexual relationship in 2022. Gibson alleged that Larson chased her in Philadelphia, threatened her, and later coerced her into oral sex by threatening professional retaliation. Larson filed a counter‑petition alleging Gibson’s abusive conduct. Both petitions were tried before a Family Court commissioner, who granted Gibson’s petition and denied Larson’s.
Procedural history
The Family Court commissioner granted Gibson’s protective order and denied Larson’s petition. The Family Court judge affirmed the commissioner’s findings. Larson appealed to the Supreme Court of Delaware.