Hill v. Division of Child Support/Charlotte Fox

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GORDON HILL,1 §
§ No. 430, 2023
Petitioner Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court of
§ the State of Delaware
v. §
§
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT § File No. CS09-02798
SERVICES/CHARLOTTE FOX, § Petition No. 23-00529
§
Respondent Below, §
Appellee. §

Submitted: May 10, 2024
Decided: July 3, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the

reasons assigned by the Family Court in its decision dated November 16, 2023. To

the extent the appellant contends that he was deprived of his right to appointed

counsel in the proceedings below under Black v. Div. of Child Support Enf’t,2 this

argument is without merit. In Black, the Court held that an indigent parent who faces

the possibility of incarceration in a State-initiated civil contempt proceeding for the

1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
2
686 A.2d 164 (Del. 1996), abrogated by Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011).
parent’s failure to pay court-ordered child support has a right to the appointment of

counsel.3 The proceeding below on the appellant’s petition to reduce his child

support obligation was not a State-initiated civil contempt proceeding in which he

faced the possibility of incarceration.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow
Justice

3
Id. at 166.

2