In re D.G.

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.¹Based 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

2 014.

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.²After 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.

2

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."³If 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."⁵The statute requires the Court to recognize a rebuttable presumption that a juvenile record causes a manifest injustice.⁶While 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

"the bar for proving manifest injustice is not high."⁸The Superior Court and Family Court have recognized a broad swath of collateral consequences that can constitute manifest injustice, including limits on employment,⁹unwarranted investigations causing embarrassment,¹⁰education barriers,¹¹and 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.

4

/ Eliza M. Hirst /_____________

ELIZA M. HIRST, JUDGE

5