Opinion
No. 116, 2006.
Submitted: March 30, 2006.
Decided: May 12, 2006.
Family Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County, File No. CS01-04304 Pet No. 06-01331.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 12th day of May 2006, upon consideration of the Clerk's notice to show cause issued on March 7, 2006, for the appellant's failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42, and the appellant's response to the notice, it appears to the Court that:
(1) Martha Wilson, the guardian of two boys, filed an emergency petition in the Family Court to modify the visitation rights of the boys' mother, Katherine Branson. By interim order dated February 3, 2006, the Family Court granted Wilson's petition and limited Branson's access to the boys to supervised visitation at a visitation center. The Family Court scheduled the matter for a full modification of visitation hearing on August 15, 2006. Branson filed this appeal from the February 3, 2006 order.
(2) On March 7, 2006, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), directing that Branson show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an interlocutory order. Branson filed a response to the notice of March 30, 2006. Branson contends that the appeal "should be heard and not dismissed" because of its "extreme nature." Nonetheless, she does not address her noncompliance with the procedural requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42.
See Supr. Ct. R. 42 (governing Court's jurisdiction to determine appeals in civil cases from interlocutory orders of a trial court).
Branson alleges that she has not seen the boys since January 2006 due to Wilson's refusal to comply with the supervised visitation schedule ordered on February 3, 2006.
(3) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders. The Family Court's order dated February 3, 2006, from which this appeal is taken, is not a final order because it modified Branson's visitation on an interim basis pending the hearing scheduled for August 15, 2006.
Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982); see J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973) (providing that an order is final if it is the final act in the case).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) for the appellant's failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42.