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.