Title: Hines v. Willard
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 24, 2012
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 15, 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RICHARD HINES,1  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KRISTEN WILLARD,  
 
           Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 24, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN02-07746 
§  Petition No. 11-26087 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: October 5, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 15, 2012 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 15th day of November 2012, upon consideration of the briefs of the 
parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Richard Hines (“Father”), filed an appeal 
from the Family Court’s January 11, 2012 order dismissing his request for review 
of the Family Court Commissioner’s order.2  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm. 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated January 20, 2012.  
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
2 Although Father’s notice of appeal states that he is appealing the Family Court’s December 28, 
2011 order, our review of the record does not reflect that any Family Court order in this matter 
was issued on that date.  Father attached a copy of the Family Court’s January 11, 2012 order to 
the notice of appeal.   
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that the parties have been litigating child support 
and visitation matters in this case since at least 2005.  In August 2011, Father filed 
a petition for a rule to show cause in the Family Court requesting that the 
respondent-appellee, Kristen Willard (“Mother”), be held in contempt of an order 
of the Family Court regarding child support arrears owed by Father.  In September 
2011, Mother responded by filing a motion to dismiss or to consolidate the petition 
with the proceedings on Father’s petition to modify child support, which was 
scheduled for a hearing before the Family Court on November 2, 2011.   
 
(3) 
In the meantime, on August 25, 2011, the Family Court 
Commissioner entered an order finding that Father had failed to comply with a 
deadline of August 1, 2011, which had been set by the Family Court, to respond to 
a Mother’s request for production of documents in connection with Father’s 
petition to modify child support.  On August 25, 2011, the Commissioner 
continued the matter to give Father one final opportunity to produce the requested 
documents.  On September 27, 2011, the motion to consolidate was granted.  On 
November 2, 2011, the Commissioner dismissed Father’s petition for a rule to 
show cause and his petition to modify child support on the ground that he had 
failed to comply with the deadline to produce the requested documents. 
 
(4) 
On November 10, 2011, Father filed a request for review of the 
Commissioner’s order pursuant to Family Court Rule of Civil Procedure 53.1.  On 
 
3
January 11, 2012, the Family Court judge dismissed Father’s request for review 
stating that, “[t]he fee for the Request for Review was not paid in time.  Therefore, 
the Request for Review is hereby dismissed.”           
 
(5) 
In his appeal, Father claims that the Family Court’s calculation of his 
child support obligation is incorrect.  He cites to a number of orders of the Family 
Court involving child support that are not before this Court in this appeal.  Father 
further takes issue with the Commissioner’s finding that he has not provided the 
documentation requested by Mother regarding his child support obligation.  
Nowhere, however, does Father contest the Family Court’s finding that the fee in 
connection with his request for review was “not paid in time.” 
 
(6) 
In an appeal from an order of the Family Court, this Court reviews the 
facts and the law, as well as the inferences and deductions made by the trial judge.3  
Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.4  If the law was correctly applied, we 
review for an abuse of discretion.5  Family Court Rule of Civil Procedure 53.1(i) 
provides as follows:  “A party appealing an order of a commissioner who fails to 
comply with the provisions of this rule or with the direction of the Court as to the 
appeal shall be subject to dismissal of said appeal.”  
                                                 
3 Wife J.F.V. v. Husband O.W.V., Jr., 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
4 Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006). 
5 W. v. W., 339 A.2d 726, 727 (Del. 1975). 
 
4
 
(7) 
Father has not addressed the issue of his apparent failure to pay the 
Family Court’s filing fee.  In the absence of any argument by Father in that respect, 
we conclude that the filing fee, in fact, was not paid.  As such, we conclude that 
there was no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Family Court in 
dismissing Father’s request for review of the Commissioner’s order on that ground. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          Justice