Title: Gordon v. Gordon
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 371, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: March 15, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
TIMOTHY M. GORDON,                      
           
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
ELLEN M. GORDON, 
     
 
 
     
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
   No. 371, 2004  
 
   Court Below---Family Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   File No. CN02-06300 
                      
 
Submitted: January 28, 2005  
   Decided: March 15, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R1 
 
 
This 15th day of March 2005, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the record below, it appears to the Court that:2 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Timothy M. Gordon (“Father”), appeals 
from the Family Court’s July 28, 2004 order denying his request for review of a 
commissioner’s child support order dated July 1, 2004.  Father also appeals from 
“all orders in the case from start to finish,”3 including the Family Court’s October 
                                                 
1 The Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 By letter dated January 10, 2005, appellee Ellen M. Gordon (“Mother”) waived her right to 
submit an answering brief.  By letter of the Clerk dated January 25, 2005, the parties were 
informed that this matter would be decided on the basis of the opening brief and the Family 
Court record.  
3 The list of orders Father seeks to appeal, spanning the time period October 2003 to October 
2004, primarily relate, either substantively or procedurally, to Father’s child support obligation. 
 
 
-2-
14, 2004 order denying his motion for a corrected transcript of the hearing before 
the commissioner.4  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
rulings of the Family Court.  
 
(2) 
The record reflects that the parties are divorced and have three minor 
children.  The children live with Mother and have visitation with Father.  In 
addition, Father pays child support.  In September 2003, Father filed a petition for 
child support modification.  In the petition, Father claimed that his child support 
obligation of $1,500.00 per month should be reduced because he had lost all 
overtime pay and Mother’s income had risen due to a promotion, pay raises and 
steady overtime.  A hearing before a Family Court commissioner was held on 
April 7, 2004. 
 
(3) 
On July 1, 2004, the Family Court commissioner entered a 
“permanent modification support order,” which required Father to pay child 
support in the amount of $1,190.00 per month and provided for an attachment of 
Father’s income for the payment of arrears.  The commissioner based his order on 
the evidence presented at the April 7, 2004 hearing and also on documentation 
Father was granted leave to submit after the hearing had concluded.  On July 28, 
                                                 
4 In connection with his appeal, Father filed a motion in this Court for a “word-for-word 
transcript” of the hearing before the commissioner. In an Order dated October 4, 2004, this Court 
directed Father to first file that motion in the Family Court, which Father did.  The Family Court 
subsequently denied the motion.  In connection with the appeal, Father also has filed a motion 
requesting this Court to order the Family Court to provide the original recording of the hearing.     
 
 
-3-
2004, the Family Court issued an order denying Father’s request for a review of the 
commissioner’s order.5         
 
(4) 
In this appeal, Father claims that, in its rulings and orders and in 
processing his paperwork, the Family Court, including the judge, mediator, 
commissioner and court personnel, violated his constitutional rights to due process 
and equal protection, impeded his ability to fully present his arguments, unfairly 
favored Mother, deliberately altered the record to prejudice his position in the 
litigation and violated various Canons of the Delaware Judges’ Code of Judicial 
Conduct and various Family Court rules.  Father also claims that the transcript of 
the April 7, 2004 hearing, as well as the original recording of the hearing, were 
improperly altered.     
 
(5) 
We have reviewed carefully the Family Court record, including all 
orders and rulings issued by the Family Court subsequent to Father’s request for a 
modification of his child support modification, the transcript of the April 7, 2004 
hearing before the commissioner, and the two orders appealed from.6  The record 
does not reflect any error of law or abuse of discretion on the part of the Family 
Court judge, the mediator or the commissioner in any respect.  The record does not 
reflect any evidence of impropriety on the part of any Family Court personnel.    
                                                 
5 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 915(d) (1) (1999). 
6 We also have reviewed the Family Court’s denial of Father’s motion for a “word-for-word” 
transcript of the hearing before the commissioner.  
 
 
-4-
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED.7  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7 In the absence of any credible evidence that either the transcript or the recording of the April 7, 
2004 hearing were improperly altered, Father’s motion for the original recording of the hearing 
is hereby denied.