Case Title: Kane v. Kane

Citation: 

Docket Number: 68, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-08-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ELLEN KANE,1 
§ 
 
 
§ 
No. 68, 2012 
 
Respondent Below- 
§ 
 
 
Appellant, 
§  
Court Below:  Family Court 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
v. 
 
§ 
for Kent County 
 
 
§ 
 
NELSON KANE, 
§  
File No. CK11-02631 
 
 
§ 
Petition No. 11-28477 
 
Petitioner Below- 
§ 
 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 16, 2012 
   Decided: August 22, 2012 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
This 22nd day of August 2012, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Respondent-Below/Appellant Ellen Kane (“Wife”) appeals from a 
Family Court order granting a Petition for Order of Protection From Abuse 
(“PFA”) filed by Petitioner-Below/Appellee Nelson Kane (“Husband”).  Wife 
contends that the Family Court abused its discretion by failing to grant her request 
for a continuance at the October 4, 2011 hearing on the PFA petition.  We find no 
merit to Wife’s appeal, and affirm. 
                                          
 
1 This Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by order dated February 13, 2012. 
Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).   
 
2
(2) 
On September 19, 2011, Husband filed a PFA petition against Wife.  
Husband later testified that Wife had pointed a loaded gun at him and attempted to 
pull the trigger.  The same day that Husband filed his petition, the Family Court 
issued a temporary ex parte PFA order against Wife.  A hearing on the matter was 
scheduled initially for September 27.  Wife was served with the petition and notice 
of the hearing on September 22, at Baylor Women’s Correctional Institution 
(“BWCI”).  But, because Wife was not transported from BWCI to the September 
27 hearing, the hearing was rescheduled and the temporary ex parte order was 
continued to October 4, 2011.  
(3) 
At the beginning of the October 4 hearing, Wife requested a 
continuance in order to gather her witnesses and prepare her case.  Wife was 
incarcerated on criminal charges relating to the events leading up to the PFA, and 
stated that she could only post bail to gather her evidence if Husband returned a 
vehicle to her.  
(4) 
The Family Court commissioner denied Wife’s request to reschedule 
the hearing, stating: 
[I]t doesn’t appear to the court that there is any date to which 
the court could reliably reschedule the matter.  And it doesn’t 
appear that [Wife] is able to provide the court with any 
information regarding when she would be able to do the things 
that she wishes to do to prepare. 
 
3
The matter proceeded.  The Family Court heard testimony from Husband and 
Wife, and concluded that Husband had proven by a preponderance of the evidence 
that Wife committed acts of abuse against him.  The Family Court issued a PFA 
order.  Wife filed a Request for Review of a Commissioner’s Order based on the 
commissioner’s failure to grant the continuance.  The Family Court denied the 
appeal and accepted the commissioner’s PFA order.  This appeal followed. 
(5) 
This Court reviews the Family Court’s denial of a request for a 
continuance for abuse of discretion.2  Wife argues that the Family Court should 
have granted her request for a continuance because she was not given notice of the 
rescheduled October 4 hearing until the evening before, and did not have the 
opportunity to contact her witnesses regarding the hearing.  She further argues that 
Husband would not have suffered any prejudice from a postponement.   
(6) 
We find no abuse of discretion on these facts.  Wife was served with 
copies of the PFA petition, related documents, and the hearing notice on 
September 22, 2011.  She was thus on notice that a PFA hearing was set to occur in 
the near future.  Although the scheduled September 27 hearing did not proceed as 
planned, the postponement afforded her an extra week to prepare.  Moreover, Wife 
failed to identify for the Family Court any particular witness that she intended to 
call at a future hearing, or would have called at the October 4 hearing if provided 
                                          
 
2 Stevenson v. Simons, 2006 WL 2048487, at *2 (Del. July 21, 2006) (citing Weber v. Weber, 
1988 WL 93433 at *2 (Del. Aug. 5, 1988). 
 
4
with earlier notice.  Nor could Wife inform the Family Court with any certainty 
when she would be prepared for a future hearing, due to her incarceration and 
pending criminal proceeding.  The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in 
declining to grant the continuance in these circumstances. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice