In re D.G.

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

THE FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF: :
THE ARREST AND CRIMINAL : Pet. # 0912006822
RECORD OF :

(DOB: --/--/1996)

DISCRETIONARY EXPUNGEMENT OF A JUVENILE RECORD
ORDER

Background and Procedural History

Before the Court is a Petition for Discretionary Expungement of a J uvenile
Record, filed by D----- G------- (“D-----”) pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1018(a)(3). The
Court held a hearing on May 19, 2026. D----- was represented by Alanna Farber,
Esq., and Abolore Oshodi, Esq., appeared on behalf of the State of Delaware.

On December 19, 2025, D----- filed his petition seeking discretionary
expungement of one count of Rape Fourth Degree (found delinquent on
02/16/2010) and one count of Rape Second Degree (nolle prosequi on
02/16/2010). The State timely opposed the expungement, arguing that
insufficient time has elapsed based on the nature of the underlying offense and
its impact on the victim and the community. Equally, the State argued that D-----’s
record should remain intact so that employers may make an informed decision
when considering his employability.

At the hearing, the Court only heard testimony from Dr. Allison Dovi, Ph.D.
The Court also noted that, in 2015, the Family Court removed D----- from the sex
offender registry and relieved him from further reporting requirements. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Court granted D-----’s discretionary expungement
based on a preponderance of the evidence, and now provides detailed reasoning

as follows.

Dr. Dovi’s Testimony
The parties stipulated that Dr. Dovi is an expert in forensic psychology
regarding the recidivism risk for individuals who previously committed sexual
offenses. Dr. Dovi completed a written report on December 14, 2025, and
determined that D----- presented a low risk for re-offense.1 Based on a
comprehensive review, Dr. Dovi determined that D----- has minimal risk factors
and strong protective factors, including that he has not engaged in any other
criminal activities; he has a supportive family, stable employment, and remains in
a long term relationship; he has completed inappropriate sexual behavior
treatment; and he was released from supervision early. In addition, he was
previously assessed as low risk in both 2010 (at the time of his adjudication) and
2014.
At the time of the incident, D----- was a 13-year-old child who had newly
arrived in the United States from Mexico. He was placed with his biological
mother and father, but they were unfamiliar to him as he had only seen them a
handful of times throughout his childhood and were never before his primary
caregivers. Soon after he came to Delaware, he experienced culture shock when
he was enrolled in a large public school. He did not speak English and
consequently struggled to adjust. As Dr. Dovi noted, D----- experienced
normatively appropriate sexual education questions but lacked trusted adults
who could answer them in his new setting. Cumulatively, these factors
contributed to this offense sixteen years ago.
Dr. Dovi opined that the risk factors that precipitated D-----’s offense are
consistent with the research on what creates a greater risk to offend. Equally
significant, various peer reviewed studies have found that fewer than 3% of
children who commit sex offenses recidivate.2 After ten years without re-offense,
the risk of recidivism falls to approximately that of someone with no prior history
of inappropriate sexual behavior.
1 Petitioner’s Exhibit C, Psychological Evaluation completed by Dr. Allison Dovi, Ph.D., December
14, 2025.

Notwithstanding D-----’s low risk, he still experiences a number of
significant challenges and stressors related to his adjudication. For example, Dr.
Dovi pointed to D-----’s concerns when applying for jobs if an employer learns of
his criminal history. Additionally, D----- runs his own dry wall business. He is not
interested in working in childcare or education, but he worries that his
adjudication from almost seventeen years ago will derail his business plans. Dr.
Dovi diagnosed D----- with mild anxiety because of such stressors, and she
further opined that expunging D-----’s record will reduce his symptoms and
enhance his protective factors, employment opportunities, and social
engagements.
Manifest Injustice
In considering a petition for discretionary expungement under 10 Del. C.
§ 1018(a)(3), the Court is tasked with finding whether the “continued existence
and possible dissemination of information relating to the arrest of the petitioner
causes, or may cause, circumstances which constitute a manifest injustice to the
petitioner.”3 If manifest injustice exists, the Court “shall enter an order requiring
the expungement of the police and court records and all other indicia of arrest,
including any electronic records, relating to the charge or case.”4
Although “manifest injustice” is not defined in the statute, this Court noted
in C.M. v. State that the General Assembly intended “to treat juveniles and
juvenile arrest records in a relatively lenient manner for expungement
purposes.”5 The statute requires the Court to recognize a rebuttable presumption
that a juvenile record causes a manifest injustice.6 While an expungement
petitioner must nevertheless plead and prove facts showing manifest injustice,7
2 Id.; see also, e.g., State v. N.T., No. 1208019062, 2014 WL 2807550, at *6 (Del. Fam. Ct. Jan.
30, 2014); Michael F. Caldwell, Quantifying the Decline in Juvenile Sexual Recidivism Rates, 22
Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 414, 419 (2016).
3 10 Del. C. § 1018(d).
4 Id.
5 No. 13–04698, 2013 WL 6174800, at *1 (Del. Fam. Ct. May 14, 2013).
6 10 Del. C. § 1018(d).
7 Id.

“the bar for proving manifest injustice is not high.”8 The Superior Court and
Family Court have recognized a broad swath of collateral consequences that can
constitute manifest injustice, including limits on employment,9 unwarranted
investigations causing embarrassment,10 education barriers,11 and difficulties in
securing housing.12
Here, D----- has alleged and proved specific facts supporting his case for
manifest injustice. In addition to the employment concerns highlighted by Dr.
Dovi, D----- raised significant collateral consequences to having a juvenile record.
While he was in school, he was mercilessly bullied over his adjudication.
Miraculously, D----- managed to graduate from high school despite such
adversity, and he later started his own drywall company. He currently lives in a
mobile home park with his wife and wishes to move to a permanent house in a
neighborhood, but he fears that his adjudication will become public. Additionally,
he is worried about starting a family because his ability to participate in future
school and community activities could be hampered by his record. Perhaps most
significant and timely, D----- will be required to renew his green card in 2027.
Each time he has applied for his green card, his juvenile adjudication has
become an issue for his immigration status, causing him stress, embarrassment,
and concern for renewal or a future application for citizenship.
Conclusion
The Court finds these collateral consequences, stemming from an
adjudication when he was 13 years old, have limited D-----’s life for far too long.
He has therefore proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his record
poses a manifest injustice. For those reasons, the Court GRANTED his
discretionary expungement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Webster v. State, No. K16X-06-002, 2016 WL 5939166, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 2, 2016).
9 Sackett v. State, No. 97X-10-003, 1998 WL 281057, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. May 7, 1998).
10 Moss v. State, No. 95X-08-005, 1996 WL 110200, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 15, 1996).
11 E.A.L. v. State, 2019 WL 168772, at *1 (Del. Fam. Ct. Jan. 19, 2019).
12 E.R. v. State, 2017 WL 5196033, at *3 (Del. Fam. Ct. Nov. 3, 2017).

/ Eliza M. Hirst /

ELIZA M HIRST, JUDGE