(a) The duty to support a child under the age of 18 years, whether born in or out of wedlock, rests primarily upon the child’s parents.
(b) Where the parents are unable to provide a minor child’s minimum needs, a stepparent or a person who cohabits in the relationship of husband and wife with the parent of a minor child shall be under a duty to provide those needs. Such duty shall exist only while the child makes residence with such stepparent or person and the marriage or cohabitation continues.
(c) The duty to support a child under 18 years of age, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall rest equally upon both parents.
(d) Both parents have a duty to support their child over 18 years of age if such child is a student in high school and is likely to graduate. This duty ends when the child receives a high school diploma or attains age 19, whichever event first occurs.
Code 1852,
§§
850-853, 1468, 1472;
26 Del. Laws, c. 137;
27 Del. Laws, c. 262,
§
13;
Code 1915,
§§
1463, 3033, 3061;
37 Del. Laws, c. 189,
§
8;
Code 1935,
§§
1634, 3526, 3548;
13 Del. C. 1953,
§
501;
50 Del. Laws, c. 207,
§
1;
59 Del. Laws, c. 567,
§
1;
60 Del. Laws, c. 334,
§
1;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Scribner v. Chonofsky, 310 A.2d 924 (Del. Ch. 1973).
· cites it 3× “Suffice it to say that 13 Del.C. § 501 establishes a legal duty, if warranted by the facts, and also a remedy whereby, among other things, a parent can be compelled to support his child, regardless of age.”
Ruggles v. Riggs, 477 A.2d 697 (Del. 1984).
“Presumably, the action to which the Court referred relates to the enforcement of a “duty to support” under 13 Del.C. §§ 501 & 511. 11 Considering George’s 20 year prison term and his indigency, the whole concept of support from him becomes rather academic.”
Spruance v. Spruance, 113 A.2d 877 (Del. Ch. 1955).
“NOTES [1] I need not decide whether 13 Del.C. § 501 has any present application.”
Jones v. Dickerson, 330 A.2d 164 (Del. Ch. 1974).
“The Court went on to cite the former 13 Del.C. § 501(a), dealing with the responsibility to support a poor person as the remaining standard, and noted enforcement was within the exclusive original civil jurisdiction of the Family Court under 10 Del.”
Zachery v. DSCS/Zachery (Del. 2018).
· cites it 2× “6 (7) The Father’s arguments on appeal may be summarized as follows: (i) the Family Court erred in calculating his wages for purposes of his child support obligation based on Department of Labor figures, instead of pay records the Father provided; (ii) the Family Court’s…”
— 13 Del. C. § 501(a) — 2 cases
Scribner v. Chonofsky, 310 A.2d 924 (Del. Ch. 1973).
“Suffice it to say that 13 Del.C. § 501 establishes a legal duty, if warranted by the facts, and also a remedy whereby, among other things, a parent can be compelled to support his child, regardless of age.”
Jones v. Dickerson, 330 A.2d 164 (Del. Ch. 1974).
“The Court went on to cite the former 13 Del.C. § 501(a), dealing with the responsibility to support a poor person as the remaining standard, and noted enforcement was within the exclusive original civil jurisdiction of the Family Court under 10 Del.”
— 13 Del. C. § 501(d) — 1 case
Zachery v. DSCS/Zachery (Del. 2018).
“6 (7) The Father’s arguments on appeal may be summarized as follows: (i) the Family Court erred in calculating his wages for purposes of his child support obligation based on Department of Labor figures, instead of pay records the Father provided; (ii) the Family Court’s…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.