Case Title: Butler v. Butler

Citation: 

Docket Number: 109, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
DANA M. BUTLER, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
ANTHONY BUTLER, SR., 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 109, 2004 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN02-09196 
§  Petition No. 03-30161 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 27, 2004 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 26, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 26th day of October 2004, upon consideration of the opening 
brief and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Dana Butler (“Mother”), filed this 
appeal purportedly from three separate orders of the Family Court dated 
December 12, 2003, February 23, 2004, and March 12, 2004.  The 
December 12 order granted appellee, Anthony Butler (“Father”), sole 
custody of the parties’ son.  The February 23 order denied Mother’s motion 
to reopen the Family Court’s custody judgment.  The March 12 order denied 
Mother’s motion “to accept answer to extend.”  The Court finds no merit to 
Mother’s appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm the Family Court’s judgment. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Father filed a petition for sole custody 
of the parties’ minor son.  The child had been living with Father since the 
time of the parties’ separation in August 2002.  Mother filed an answer to 
the petition for sole custody.  The Family Court sent notice to the parties of 
the hearing scheduled for December 12, 2003.  Mother’s notice was sent to 
the address she had listed in her answer to Father’s petition.  Mother failed 
to appear at the hearing.  Father appeared and informed the judge, among 
other things, that Mother was scheduled to be tried on December 18, 2003 
on criminal charges relating to her assault on Father.1  Following the 
hearing, the Family Court granted Father’s petition and awarded him sole 
custody of the parties’ son.  The Family Court indicated that Mother could 
file a petition for visitation if she so desired. 
 
(3) 
Mother did not file a timely appeal from the Family Court’s 
custody decision.  Instead, on February 3, 2004, Mother filed a motion to 
reopen the Family Court’s judgment.  Mother argued that she had been 
hospitalized from November 21 until December 23, 2003 and was physically 
unable to attend the custody hearing on December 12.  The Family Court 
                                                 
1 The Superior Court criminal docket reflects that Mother was arrested in August 
2002 and charged with second degree assault, possession of a deadly weapon during the 
commission of a felony, and endangering the welfare of a child.  She pled guilty in April 
2004 to the lesser included offense of third degree assault.  The State dismissed the 
remaining charges.  The Superior Court sentenced Mother to one year of incarceration 
suspended entirely for one year of probation. 
 
3
held that, even assuming Mother was hospitalized on the date of the 
December hearing, she had failed to offer any explanation for why she had 
waited nearly two months to file her motion to reopen.  The Family Court 
thus denied Mother’s motion to reopen, but it did so without prejudice to 
Mother’s right to file a motion to modify the December 2003 custody order.  
Mother did not file a motion to modify.  Instead, she filed a motion “to 
accept answer to extend.”  The Family Court denied Mother’s motion.  This 
appeal ensued. 
 
(4) 
In her opening brief on appeal, Mother again asserts that she 
was unable to attend the December 12 hearing due to her hospitalization.  
She contends that her son was never in danger during the incident that led to 
her arrest for assault.  She requests this Court to reinstate her joint custody 
privileges. 
 
(5) 
In the absence of a timely-filed motion for reargument, Mother 
was required to file her appeal from the Family Court’s December 12 
custody ruling within 30 days of its docketing.2  Mother’s appeal from the 
Family Court’s December 12 custody decision is clearly untimely under the 
circumstances of this case and, thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the 
                                                 
2 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i). 
 
4
Family Court’s custody order.3  With respect to the Family Court’s denial of 
Mother’s subsequent motions to reopen, we review these orders abuse of 
discretion.4  Mother’s motion to reopen failed to explain why she did not 
seek a continuance of the hearing prior to December 12 or explain why she 
waited until February to request reconsideration of the Family Court’s order.  
Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the Family Court’s discretion 
in denying Mother’s motion to reopen the judgment. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Family Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
3 Riggs v. Riggs, 539 A.2d 163, 164 (Del. 1988). 
4 See Battaglia v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y, 379 A.2d 1132, 1135 (Del. 
1977).