DCSS/M.H. v. L.H.

THE FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
DCSS/M---- H-----
Petitioner
v.
L------ H-----
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
File No.: CN12-05272
Pet. No.: 24-24025
REVIEW OF COMMISSIONER’S ORDER
Date of Order: 06/30/2026
Date of ROCO Filed: 08/06/2026
Transcript Received: Transcript not needed
Answer Filed: N/A
Order Entered: 8/11/2026
DCSS/M---- H-----, A------ L----, Esquire
L------ H-----, pro se
Kerr, F., Judge

Pending before the Court is a Request for Review of a Commissioner’s Order (“ROCO”)
filed by L------ H----- (“Father”). Father is seeking a review of the Order entered by
Commissioner Jessica Markowski-Kelly on June 30, 2026 awarding child support to M---- H-----
(“Mother”). Specifically, Father alleges that the Commissioner erred by awarding child support
for minor child, L------ W. H----- (hereinafter “the Child”), born 10/02/2015, as the Child is not
his biological child. Father attached what he alleges to be proof of genetic testing from 2016,
confirming that the Child is not his biological child. For the reasons cited herein, the Court
affirms the Commissioner’s Order.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court will not recite the entire legal history in the file but will rather cite only the
relevant pleadings and orders. On 10/20/2024, Petitioners DCSS/M---- H----- filed for child
support in the instant Petition. On 4/10/2025, Father filed for Paternity Determination,
requesting to be removed as the Child’s father, in Petition 25-08671. On 4/28/2025, the
Commissioner entered an Order Dismissing the Petition for Paternity Determination as Father
had signed a Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity for the Child on September 20, 2020 and
had not challenged paternity within the time allowed by Delaware’s Parentage Act to request
rescission. This was a final Order on Paternity. No Request for Review of Commissioner’s
Order was filed regarding the dismissal of the Petition for Paternity Adjudication. Father then
filed another Petition for Paternity Adjudication on June 2, 2025 in Petition 25-14912 which was
virtually identical to the Petition dismissed on April 28, 2025. On September 16, 2025 the
Commissioner dismissed this second Petition for Paternity Adjudication based upon the doctrine

of res judicata as the issue presented was the same issue alleged in the April 10, 2025 Petition.
No Review of Commissioner’s Order was filed for the Dismissal of Petition 25-14912. On June
30, 2026, the Commissioner entered an Order establishing Child Support in Petition 24-24025.
The Child Support Order states that regarding the Child “Parentage was adjudicated by prior
Court Order dated 4/28/2025.” On August 6, 2026, Father filed this ROCO of the June 30, 2026
Order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A party may seek a review of a Commissioner’s Order pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 915(d)(1),
which provides:
Any party, except a party in default of appearance before a
Commissioner, may appeal a final order of a Commissioner to a
judge of the Court by filing and serving written objections to such
order, as provided by the rules of Court, within 30 days from the
date of the Commissioner’s order. A judge of the Court shall make
a de novo determination of those portions of the Commissioner’s
order to which objection is made. A judge of the Court may accept,
reject, or modify in whole or in part the Order of the Commissioner.
The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter
to the Commissioner with instruction.1
Because this was a Commissioner’s final order, the Court reviews the Order de novo.2
According to Black’s Law Dictionary a de novo review is “[a]n appeal in which the appellate
court uses the trial court’s record but reviews the evidence and law without deference to the trial
court’s rulings.”3 Pursuant to Family Court Civil Rule 53.1(b), an appeal of a Commissioner’s
Order must “set forth with particularity the basis for each objection.”4 Upon taking the matter
1 10 Del. C. § 915(d)(1).
2 Id.
3 Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
4 FAM. CT. CIV. P. R. 53.1(b).

under review, a judge of the Court will make a de novo determination regarding the objected to
portions of the Commissioner’s Order.5 A judge will make an independent decision by
reviewing the Commissioner’s findings of fact determined at the Commissioner’s hearing, any
testimony and documentary evidence on the record, and the specific objections of the moving
party.6
ARGUMENTS RAISED
The only Argument raised in this ROCO is settled by a question of law and not fact.
While whether Father is biologically the father of the Child is a factual dispute, the resolution of
the issue was not determined upon the facts, but rather upon principles of law. The
Commissioner found on April 28, 2025 that since Father did not challenge paternity within the
time frame allotted by Delaware’s Parentage Act at 13 Del. C. §§8-307, 8-308, he was precluded
from contesting paternity. Unfortunately for Respondent, the Request for Review of
Commissioner’s Order was also untimely and therefore must be DENIED.
ANALYSIS
THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF COMMISSIONER’S ORDER MUST BE DENIED
AS UNTIMELY
On April 28, 2025, the Commissioner made a finding that Respondent could not
challenge his Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity and dismissed his Paternity Petition. He
did not file a ROCO within 30 days as required by Family Court Civil Rule 53.1(b) and 10 Del.
C. §901(d)(1). Likewise, after the September 16, 2025 Order dismissing his second Paternity
5 10 Del. C. § 915(d)(1); see also FAM. CT. CIV. P. R. 53.1(e).
6 C.M. v. L.A., 2007 WL 4793042, at *1 (Del. Fam. Ct. Dec. 27, 2007).

Petition, Father did not file a ROCO within 30 days. The Order entered on June 30, 2026 was
only on child support as paternity had already been adjudicated in the April 28, 2025 Order.
Furthermore, even if this Order could be considered as the Order adjudicating parentage, it is still
filed too late as it was filed more than 30 days after June 30, 2026.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses this ROCO as untimely and the
Commissioner’s Order is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
____/ Felice Glennon Kerr /_________
FELICE GLENNON KERR, Judge
Cc: Parties/Counsel
The Honorable Jessica Markowski-Kelly
Date mailed: