Case Title: Hines v. Williams

Citation: 

Docket Number: 548, 2017

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MELINDA HINES,1 
 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CHESTER WILLIAMS, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 548, 2017 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File No. CN15-06488 
§  Petition No. 16-13554 
§ 
§   
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 23, 2018 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: May 29, 2018 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 29th day of May 2018, upon consideration of the notice to show cause 
and the appellant’s response thereto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Melinda Hines (“Mother”), filed this appeal from the 
Family Court’s decision dated November 17, 2017, reopening its October 9, 2017 
default custody order and reinstating a May 2017 interim custody order.  The Family 
Court docket reflects that the parties’ cross-petitions for custody remain pending 
before that court.   
                                                 
1 The Court assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
 
2 
(2) 
The Clerk of this Court issued a notice to Mother to show cause why 
her appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.  Mother filed a response to 
the notice to show cause, but it does not address the interlocutory nature of the 
appeal.   
(3) 
An order constitutes a final judgment when it “leaves nothing for future 
determination or consideration.”2  The Family Court’s vacatur of its default custody 
order is an interlocutory ruling because it reopened the custody proceedings and did 
not finally resolve the merits of the parties’ cross-petitions for custody.3   
(4) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 
jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final trial court orders.4  Mother’s 
failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 leaves this Court without jurisdiction 
to hear her interlocutory appeal.  Mother may appeal once the Family Court issues a 
final custody order in the case. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal 
is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992). 
3 Id. 
4 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).