IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF DENNIS SHIPMAN

FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

§ 

§ No. 164, 2016

§

Submitted: April 21, 2016

Decided: May 2, 2016

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 2nd day of May 2016, upon consideration of Dennis Shipman’s (“the 

Father”) petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The Father seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court, 

under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus ordering a Family 

Court judge to issue a reviewable order on the Father’s petition for modification of 

custody, to recuse himself, or to order production of the child (“the Child”) for 

visitation. We conclude that the Father’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the 

original jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.

(2) On November 25, 2014, this Court affirmed a July 2, 2014 Family 

Court order awarding sole custody of the Child of the Father and the mother (“the 

Mother”) to the Mother and granting the Father visitation with the Child every 

other weekend.

1

 According to the Father, the Mother has not complied with the 

 

1

Stevens v. Brown, 2014 WL 7010036 (Del. Nov. 25, 2014).
2

Family Court order. The Father claims that he is entitled a writ of mandamus 

because the Family Court has not adjudicated his filings, including a June 2015 

omnibus motion, to obtain visitation, to modify the July 2, 2014 Family Court

order, and to disqualify the Family Court judge who entered the July 2, 2014 order.

(3) The record reflects that the Father filed a petition for modification of 

custody on January 12, 2016. In a letter dated January 14, 2016, the Chief Judge 

of the Family Court responded to correspondence from the Father regarding his

June 2015 omnibus motion. The Chief Judge informed Father that a judicial 

officer would review the June 2015 omnibus motion, which had been returned to 

the Father as deficient. The Chief Judge further stated that he did not have the 

authority to force the Family Court who entered the July 2, 2014 order to recuse 

himself. 

(4) In a letter dated January 19, 2016, the Family Court judge who 

entered the July 2, 2014 order informed the Father and the Mother that the June 

2015 omnibus motion was returned to the Father as deficient because there was no 

open petition. The Family Court judge noted, however, that a December 19, 2015 

omnibus motion, which sought visitation and modification of the custody order as 

well as recusal of the Family Court judge, was attached to the Father’s January 12, 

2016 petition for modification of custody. In light of the pending petition, the 

Family Court judge stated that upon payment of the filing fee and service of the 
3

petition, the Mother would have ten days to respond to the petition and December 

19, 2015 omnibus motion. The Mother filed an answer on March 2, 2016. 

(5) A writ of mandamus will only issue if the petitioner can show: (i) a 

clear right to the performance of a duty; (ii) that no other adequate remedy is 

available; and (iii) the Family Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its 

duty.2 “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, 

this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a 

particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the 

control of its docket.”

3

 

(6) The Father has not shown that the Family Court arbitrarily failed or 

refused to perform a duty owed to him. It has been only two months since the 

Mother filed her answer to the Father’s petition for modification of custody and 

December 19, 2015 omnibus motion. Because the Father has failed to show that 

he is entitled the issuance of a writ of mandamus, his petition must be dismissed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of 

a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

2

In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).

3

Id.