Title: Williams v. James

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MYLES WILLIAMS,1 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JULIA JAMES/DIVISION OF 
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ No. 400, 2021 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CN21-01196 
§  Petition No. 21-09291 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  July 8, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
September 6, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and TRAYNOR, Justices.  
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to 
the Court that:   
(1) 
The respondent below-appellant, Myles Williams (“the Father”), filed 
this appeal from the Family Court’s order affirming in part and denying in part the 
Commissioner’s child support order.  For the reasons set forth below, this Court 
affirms the Family Court judgment. 
(2) 
The Father and the petitioner below-appellee, Julia James (“the 
Mother”), are the parents of a child born in 2020 (“the Child”).  On April 22, 2021, 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).  
2 
 
the Division of Child Support Services (“DCSS”) filed a petition for child support 
on behalf of the Mother.  On November 15, 2021, a Family Court Commissioner 
held a hearing on the petition.  Both parents appeared and participated.  On 
November 17, 2021, the Commissioner entered an order requiring the Father to pay 
$916.00 in monthly child support, effective October 22, 2020,2 and $844.00 in 
monthly child support (plus $50.00 in monthly arrears), effective April 7, 2021.  In 
determining these amounts, the Commissioner performed a calculation of the 
parties’ income between October 22, 2020 and April 6, 2021, and a calculation of 
the parties’ income beginning on April 7, 2021. 
(3) 
On November 23, 2021, the Father requested review of the 
Commissioner’s order.  He stated that he lived with the Mother and supported the 
Child until January 17, 2021.  He also argued that the Commissioner had 
miscalculated his monthly income for the support obligation beginning on April 7, 
2021.  The Mother opposed the Father’s arguments.   
(4) 
On December 8, 2021, the Family Court affirmed in part and reversed 
in the part the Commissioner’s order.   Based on the parties’ filings reflecting that 
they had lived together with the Child until January 17, 2021, the Family Court found 
that the Father had rebutted the presumption of six months retroactivity and modified 
 
2 Paragraph 2 of the order incorrectly referred to this date as October 22, 2021, but the discussion 
in paragraph 9 correctly referred to this date as October 22, 2020. 
3 
 
the Father’s child support obligation to become effective on January 18, 2021, 
instead of October 22, 2020.  As to the Father’s monthly income since April 7, 2021, 
the Family Court concluded that it was calculated correctly.  This appeal followed.   
(5) 
This Court’s review of a Family Court order, including the Family 
Court’s review of a Commissioner’s order, extends to a review of the facts and the 
law, as well as to the inferences and deductions made by the judge.3  We review 
issues of law de novo.4  If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, we review 
for abuse of discretion.5  
(6) 
On appeal, the Father argues that (i) the child support arrears should not 
include the months he was living with the Mother and supporting the Child; (ii) the 
calculation for his monthly income beginning on April 7, 2021 should not include 
$333.00 from his water ice business because that business operated at a loss in 2021;  
and (iii) the child support arrears are inflated because he did not receive a raise for 
his current job until September 2021.  The Father has also asked the Court to 
“advise” how his child support obligation  “will be adjusted in 2022 and 2023 since 
bonuses are not promise[d] and not given on a regular basis[].”6 
 
3 Kraft v. Mason, 2010 WL 5341918, at *2 (Del. Dec. 20, 2010) (citing Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 
1276, 1279 (Del.1983)). 
4 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 
5 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186 (Del. 1991). 
6 Opening Br. at 2. 
4 
 
(7) 
In his request for review of the Commissioner’s order, the Father stated 
that he had resided with the Mother and Child until January 17, 2021.  Interpreting 
this statement as a challenge to the retroactivity of the child support order, the Family 
Court reviewed the parties’ filings, found that they had lived together with the Child 
until January 17, 2021, and held that the Father had rebutted the presumption of six 
months retroactivity under Family Civil Procedure Rule 509(a).7  The Family Court 
modified the Father’s child support obligation to become effective on January 18, 
2021 with no change in the monthly amounts owed.   
(8) 
The Father argues on appeal that the arrears should not include child 
support for the months he resided with the Mother and Child.  The child support 
order does not contain the amount of arrears, but simply states that the Father has a 
back support obligation to be calculated by DCSS and requires the Father to pay 
$50.00 a month in arrears/retroactive support.  DCSS appears to agree with the 
Father’s position, representing that “no arrears are assessed to Father, prior to the 
retroactivity date of January 18, 2021.”8  We accept DCSS’s representation that the 
Father’s arrears do not include child support before January 18, 2021 and find no 
error in the Family Court’s calculation of the retroactivity date.9   
 
7 Under this rule, “[r]etroactive support in a new support action shall be presumed at 6 months 
prior to the date of filing.  The burden of proof shall be on the party seeking greater or lesser 
retroactivity.”  
8 Answering Br. at 12.   
9 To the extent the Father has provided a document suggesting that the amount of arrears may 
include child support for October 2020 through January 17, 2021, he did not present this document 
5 
 
(9) 
As he did in his request for review of the Commissioner’s order, the 
Father also argues that his monthly income beginning in April 2021 should not have 
included $333.00 from his water-ice business because he operated that business at a 
loss.  The Commissioner included this amount based on the Father’s testimony that, 
in addition to his primary job as a driver, he operated a water ice business on the side 
and netted $4,000.00 in profits from that business in 2021.  The Commissioner 
divided that $4,000.00 by twelve months to attribute the Father with $333.00 per 
month from his water-ice business.   
(10) Applying Family Court Civil Procedure Rule 501(l), which provides 
guidance on when secondary income is included in the determination of support, the 
Family Court held that the Commissioner properly included the Father’s net profits 
from the water ice business in his monthly income.  The Father does not challenge 
the Family Court’s application of Rule 501(l), but argues that the business had 
greater losses than profits in 2021.  This argument is contrary to the Father’s 
testimony at the child support hearing:   
Commissioner:  Okay, Mr. Williams, when you said you made four thousand 
dollars [$4,000] in 2021, that was net, was that profit? 
Mr. Williams:  Profit, yes. 
Commissioner:  Okay, and you also said you took a loss? 
 
to the Family Court in the first instance and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.  See 
Price v. Boulden, 2014 WL 3566030, at *2 (Del. July 14, 2014) (“[T]his evidence was not available 
to the Family Court in the first instance, is outside of the record on appeal, and cannot properly be 
considered by this Court.”); Del. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Duphily, 703 A.2d 1202, 1206 (Del. 1997) 
(“It is a basic tenet of appellate practice that an appellate court reviews only matters considered in 
the first instance by a trial court.”).   
6 
 
Mr. Williams:  Yes, ma’am. 
Commissioner:  And what was that? 
Mr. Williams:  Uh, the loss was about five thousand [5,000]. 
Commissioner:  So, was the four thousand [4,000] what you took after the 
loss? 
Mr. Williams:  Um, before. 
Commissioner:  So, you’re negative one thousand dollars [-1,000]? 
Mr. Williams:  Um, no after, I’m sorry that was after.  After, yeah.  My bad.10 
 
(11) In addition, the Father did not object to DCSS’s closing statement that 
the Father had net income of $4,000.00 from the water ice business in 2021, resulting 
in an additional $333.00 in monthly income.  Based on the Father’s testimony, the 
Family Court did not err in concluding that his monthly income should include the 
monthly portion of the $4,000.00 in net profits he earned from his water ice business 
in 2021.  To the extent the Father relies on his tax returns for 2021 to argue otherwise, 
those returns were not presented to the Family Court in the first instance, and we 
will not consider them for the first time on appeal.11    
(12) The Father next argues that the child support arrears are inflated by 
$900.00 because the Commissioner’s calculation of his monthly income beginning 
in April 2021 was based on the Father earning $1,075.00 a week as a truck driver, 
even though he earned $975.00 a week until he received a raise of $100.00 per week 
in September 2021.  In calculating the Father’s wages as a truck driver, the 
Commissioner relied on pay stubs he provided from October and November 2021.  
 
10 App. to Answering Br. at B40-B41. 
11 See supra n.9. 
7 
 
Those pay stubs reflected that the Father was earning $1,075.00 per week and the 
Father did not mention a recent raise at the hearing.   The Family Court did not err 
in concluding that the Commissioner correctly calculated the Father’s monthly 
income.   
(13) Finally, the Father asks how his monthly income will be adjusted in 
2022 and 2023 if he does not receive another $2,185.00 bonus like he did in 2021.  
The Commissioner divided the $2,185.00 bonus by twelve months to attribute the 
Father with an additional $107.00 in monthly income.  To the extent the Father is 
suggesting that his bonus should not have been included in the calculation of his 
monthly income, he is mistaken.   The General Assembly has defined “income” for 
the purpose of calculating child support obligations as including bonuses.12  If the 
Father suffers a substantial change in circumstances not caused by his voluntary or 
wrongful conduct, he may petition the Family Court for modification of his child 
support obligation.13 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
12 13 Del. C. § 513(b)(5). 
13 Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. Proc. R. 508.  If he files such a petition within two and one-half years of the 
Family Court’s last determination of child support, he must allege a substantial change in 
circumstances with particularity and there will be no modification unless the new calculation 
produces a change more than 10%.  Id.