The Delaware Supreme Court has dismissed a petition from Douglas A. Graham seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Family Court to end the involvement of the Division of Family Services (DFS) in his family's custody case. The court ruled on November 9, 2026, that Graham did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for the extraordinary relief he sought, which would have required the Family Court to return his children to his care.

This ruling is significant for families involved in custody disputes, particularly those facing allegations of neglect or dependency. The decision highlights the limitations of seeking a writ of mandamus in family law cases and underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures to address grievances.

Background

Douglas A. Graham filed his petition for a writ of mandamus under Docket Number 402, 2026, after his children were placed in the custody of DFS in August 2025. The Family Court initiated dependency and neglect proceedings against Graham and his partner, Melissa Guzman, following allegations made by family members. Graham claimed these accusations were false and coordinated to remove his children from their home.

In his petition, Graham argued that the Family Court had failed to consider evidence in his favor and had made incorrect legal and factual conclusions. He expressed concern that the ongoing proceedings were harmful to the children and not in their best interests. A hearing regarding the guardianship and dependency issues is scheduled for December 10, 2026, which adds urgency to Graham's request for a writ.

The Ruling

The Delaware Supreme Court, composed of Justices Traynor, LeGrow, and Griffiths, reviewed Graham's petition and the state's response. The court outlined the conditions under which a writ of mandamus may be issued, stating that the petitioner must show a clear right to the performance of a duty, that no other adequate remedy is available, and that the Family Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.

The court concluded, “There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus here. Graham has failed to demonstrate that the Family Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him.” The court further noted that Graham's dissatisfaction with the Family Court's scheduling and decisions does not warrant a writ of mandamus. Instead, he can appeal once the Family Court issues a final decision.

Impact

This ruling serves as a reminder that the extraordinary writ process is not intended to replace the standard appellate review process. Families involved in custody disputes must adhere to established legal procedures and cannot bypass them through a writ of mandamus. The court's decision reinforces the importance of allowing the Family Court to conduct its proceedings without interference.

Moreover, this case may set a precedent for future petitions seeking similar relief. It clarifies that dissatisfaction with court decisions or procedures does not constitute grounds for extraordinary relief, emphasizing the need for proper legal channels in family law matters.

What's Next

Graham's case is not over, as he can still appeal the Family Court's decisions once they are finalized. Additionally, Guzman has filed a separate petition for a writ of mandamus, which may also influence the ongoing legal proceedings.