Title: Hamilton v. Bolden
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 153, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 28, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MARVIN A. HAMILTON, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DCSE/LINDA S. BOLDEN, 
 
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 153, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. CK01-03486 
§  Petition Nos. 04-28424  
§                        04-03729 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 9, 2005 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: November 28, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R1  
 
 
This 28th day of November 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Marvin A. Hamilton (“Father”), filed 
an appeal from the Family Court’s March 16, 2005 order, which established 
his current child support obligation and found him in contempt of a prior 
child support order.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we 
affirm. 
                                                 
1 This Court has sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties and their minor child.  
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
2
 
(2) 
Father and respondent-appellee Linda S. Bolden (“Mother”) are 
the biological parents of one minor child, Marvin, Jr., born January 28, 
2001.  On March 26, 2002, the Family Court commissioner issued a child 
support order regarding Marvin, Jr., which required Father to pay child 
support in the amount of $400 total per month ($340 in current support and 
$60 in arrears).  On January 9, 2004, Father filed a motion to vacate the 
arrears portion of his support obligation on the ground that the arrears 
already had been paid in full.  By order dated January 29, 2004, the 
commissioner granted Father’s motion and modified the original support 
order to require Father to pay only $340 per month.    
 
(3) 
On that same date, Father filed a petition for modification of 
child support on the ground that he had lost his employment.  A mediation 
conference was held on June 3, 2004 and, because the parties were unable to 
agree on Father’s child support obligation, the matter was referred to a 
commissioner.  The Division of Child Support Enforcement (“DCSE”) 
subsequently filed a petition for support arrears on behalf of Mother.  The 
petition alleged that Father had failed to comply with the Family Court’s 
January 29, 2004 order, had failed to make any child support payments since 
March 3, 2004, and owed arrears in the amount of $1,708.00 as of August 
24, 2004. 
 
3
 
(4) 
On November 10, 2004, a hearing on the petitions was held 
before a Family Court commissioner.  Mother and Father both testified.  On 
November 12, 2004, the commissioner issued an order holding Father in 
civil contempt of the Family Court’s January 29, 2004 support order and 
requiring Father to pay support in the amount of $350 per month ($305 in 
current support and $45 in arrears).  The commissioner attributed to Mother 
her 2003 earnings pursuant to her 2003 federal tax return.  Because Father 
was earning below the minimum income attribution of $7.50 per hour based 
on a 40 hour work week pursuant to the Family Court’s Child Support 
Guidelines, the commissioner attributed $1,300 per month from employment 
to Father as well as his non-taxable monthly disability benefit of $545.  The 
commissioner made the order retroactive to the date of the Family Court 
mediation, which had taken place on June 3, 2004.  
 
(5) 
Citing error on the part of the commissioner, Father requested 
review of the commissioner’s order by a Family Court judge.2  By order 
dated March 16, 2005, the Family Court judge found that the 
commissioner’s child support calculation erroneously credited Mother with 
two additional dependents rather than one and, accordingly, recalculated 
Father’s child support obligation to require a monthly payment of $284 in 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 915(d) (1) (1999). 
 
4
current support, plus $45 per month in arrears, but otherwise found no error 
on the part of the commissioner.   
 
(6) 
In this appeal, Father claims that: a) the Family Court erred by 
failing to make the recalculated child support obligation retroactive to the 
date he filed his petition for support modification, improperly calculating his 
income, improperly calculating Mother’s income, and finding him in 
contempt; and b) the Family Court’s order is void because it is based on a 
2002 default judgment, is contrary to Delaware law and violates his due 
process rights.  
 
(7) 
The Family Court reviews de novo those portions of a 
commissioner’s order to which objection is made and may accept, reject or 
modify the order in whole or in part, and may receive further evidence or 
remand the matter to the commissioner with instructions.3  On appeals from 
the Family Court, this Court reviews the facts and the law.4  If the Family 
Court has applied the law correctly, our standard of review is abuse of 
discretion.5 
 
We find no error on the part of the Family Court in making Father’s 
child support obligation retroactive only to the date of the mediation rather 
                                                 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 915(d) (1); Fam. Ct. Civ. Proc. R. 53.1(e). 
4 Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). 
5 Jones v. Lang, 591 A.2d 185, 186 (Del. 1991). 
 
5
than the date Father filed his petition for support modification, since Father 
could not produce proof of notice of the petition to Mother by certified or 
registered mail.6  We also find that the Family Court properly found that the 
commissioner had erroneously credited Mother with two dependents and 
corrected that error, and that it properly accepted the remaining findings of 
the commissioner.   Father’s claim that the Family Court’s order is void and 
constitutes a violation of his rights is without any factual or legal support. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
   
                                                 
6 Kenton v. Kenton, 571 A.2d 778, 781 (Del. 1990); Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 513(d) (2) 
(1999).