Title: Harris v. Kerr
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 59, 2020
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MATTHEW HARRIS,1 
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
NANCY KERR, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§      No. 59, 2020 
§ 
§      Court Below—Family Court 
§      of the State of Delaware 
§     
§      File No. CN13-06160 
§      Petition No. 18-11799 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:   December 4, 2020 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   February 2, 2021 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to 
the Court that:   
(1) 
The petitioner below-appellant, Matthew Harris (“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, we affirm the 
Family Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
The Father and the respondent below-appellee, Nancy Kerr (“the 
Mother”) were married and lived with their child, who was born in 2012 (“the 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).  
2 
 
Child”).  The parties separated in 2013 and divorced in 2014.  After the parties’ 
separation, the Mother and the Child moved to Massachusetts.  The Father remained 
in Delaware.  On September 24, 2014, the Family Court issued a permanent child 
support order requiring the Father to pay $1,697.00 a month (the “Delaware Child 
Support Order”).   
(3) 
On April 24, 2018, the Father filed a petition in the Family Court to 
modify the Delaware Child Support Order.  He argued that the amount of child 
support should be reduced to $800.00 per month because the Mother’s income had 
substantially increased.  The Mother filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing 
that the Middlesex Probate and Family Court in Massachusetts had exclusive 
jurisdiction over child support.  The Father opposed the motion.   
(4) 
After the Family Court Commissioner dismissed the Father’s petition, 
the Father filed a motion for reargument.  The Commissioner granted the Father’s 
motion for reargument, concluding that the Family Court had continuing, exclusive 
jurisdiction over child support.  On June 10, 2019, the Commissioner ordered the 
Father to pay $2,255.00 a month (which included $100.00 a month in arrears) in 
child support.  The Father filed a request for review of the Commissioner’s child 
support order. 
(5) 
The Family Court reopened the record to gather additional evidence 
related to the Father’s request for review.  After a hearing, the Family Court issued 
3 
 
an order, dated January 9, 2020, affirming in part and denying in part the 
Commissioner’s order.  The Family Court ordered the Father to pay $1,279.00 a 
month in child support effective April 28, 2019.  This appeal followed.   
(6) 
At the time of the filing of this appeal, the Father’s motion to correct a 
clerical mistake concerning the effective date of the January 9, 2020 order was 
pending in the Family Court.  This Court remanded the matter for the Family Court 
to rule upon the Father’s motion.  After the Family Court granted the motion and 
changed the effective date of the January 9, 2020 child support order to April 28, 
2018, the matter was returned to this Court.     
(7) 
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.2  We review 
issues of law de novo.3  If the Family Court has correctly applied the law, our 
standard of review is abuse of discretion.4  
(8) 
On appeal, the Father argues that the Family Court erred in failing to 
impose sanctions upon the Mother for filing a false financial disclosure report under 
Family Court Civil Rule 16(a) and for deducting childcare costs from the Mother’s 
 
2 Kraft v. Mason, 2010 WL 5341918, at *2 (Del. Dec. 20, 2010) (citing Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 
1276, 1279 (Del.1983)). 
3 In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 1995). 
4 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 187 (Del. 1991). 
4 
 
income.  The Mother requests re-calculation of the Father’s child support obligation 
based on documents showing her childcare expenses for 2019.     
(9) 
The imposition of sanctions is within the discretion of the Family 
Court.5  In addressing the Father’s contention that the Commissioner should not have 
accepted the Mother’s allegedly false and incomplete Rule 16(a) report, the Family 
Court found that the report was not admitted into evidence, the Commissioner did 
not rely on the report to make her calculations, and the error in the employer’s name 
would not have affected the outcome of the proceedings.  The record supports these 
findings.  Under these circumstances, the Family Court did not abuse its discretion 
in failing to impose sanctions based upon the Mother’s Rule 16(a) financial report. 
(10)    Although the Family Court reduced the Commissioner’s calculation 
of the Mother’s monthly childcare expenses from $2,299.00 to $950.00, the Father 
argues that this reduced amount is still inflated because it is based on the false 
premise that the Mother worked overtime and had to pay for childcare.  In making 
this argument, the Father relied on a document he obtained from the Mother’s 
employer stating that, in the last calendar year, the Mother had worked 2080 hours 
(forty hours per week) at her regular pay rate and did not receive any overtime.  In 
rejecting the Father’s argument, the Family Court highlighted the Mother’s 
testimony that she was a salaried employee who often had to work more than forty 
 
5 Tandy v. DCSE/Violet Tandy, 2006 WL 435584, at *2 (Del. Feb. 21, 2006).  
5 
 
hours per week even though she did not receive overtime compensation for those 
additional hours.  The Mother also worked with individuals overseas, which 
necessitated that she work in the evenings.  The Family Court found the Mother’s 
testimony on this subject credible. When the determination of facts turns on a 
question of the credibility and the acceptance or rejection of the testimony of 
witnesses appearing before the trier of fact, as it does here, we will not substitute our 
opinion for the trier of fact.6 
(11) Finally, the Court will not direct the Family Court to re-calculate child 
support as the Mother requests in her answering brief.  If the Mother wished to 
challenge how the Family Court calculated child support, she should have filed a 
cross-appeal.  She did not do so.  In addition, the Mother’s request is based on 
documents that were not presented to the Family Court in the first instance, and we 
will not consider them for the first time on appeal.7  Having carefully considered the 
parties’ positions and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Family Court’s 
judgment should be affirmed.    
 
 
6 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
7 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 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice