Case Title: Biddle v. Division of Youth and Family Services

Citation: 

Docket Number: 478, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
1The July 10 decision addressed the status of sixty-one pending matters that spanned
eight separate files and twenty-three petitions.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PAMELA M.  BIDDLE,
§
§
No.  478, 2003
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Family Court of
§
the State of Delaware, in and
v.
§
for Sussex County in File Nos.
§
CK01-04020, CK01-04021,
DIVISION OF YOUTH and
§
CK01-04022; Pet.  Nos.
FAMILY SERVICES,
§
01-19991, 01-20004, 01-
§
20011, 01-20017, 01-20021,
Respondent Below,
§
01-20024.
Appellee.
§
Submitted: October 16, 2003
Decided:
November 10, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 10th day of November 2003, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
Pamela M.  Biddle has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the
Family Court on July 10, 2003.1  By order dated October 16, 2003, the Family
Court refused Biddle’s application for certification of the interlocutory appeal.
(2)
Supreme Court Rule 42(c)(i) provides that an application for
certification of an interlocutory appeal must be served and filed with the trial
2Indeed, the Family Court could find no indication in the record that Biddle had ever
filed a “Motion for Recusation,” the denial of which, according to Biddle, was the thrust of
her application for certification of the interlocutory appeal.
3Moreover, Biddle has not filed the supplemental notice of appeal that is required by
Supreme Court Rule 42(d)(iii).
2
court “within 10 days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is sought
or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, may order for good cause
shown.”  In this case, the Family Court’s July 10 decision was mailed to the
parties on August 26, 2003.  Biddle filed her application for certification
twenty-two days later on September 17, 2003.  Biddle did not request an
extension of the ten-day filing period, nor did the Family Court find good cause
to accept the late filing.2 Consequently, Biddle’s application for certification
was untimely filed.
(3)
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases.  In this
case, Biddle failed to follow the proper procedures for certifying an
interlocutory appeal to this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42.3  The appeal
could be refused on that basis.  Moreover, even if we assume that Biddle
complied with the procedural requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42, we
conclude that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the
3
substantive requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b), and the appeal should
be refused on that basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J.  Holland
Justice