Case Title: Riddle v. Division of Family Services, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 48, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
META A. RIDDLE, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 48, 2003 
 
Respondent Below, 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Family Court  
§ 
of the State of Delaware, in  
v. 
§ 
and for Sussex County in File  
§ 
No. CS00-03546. 
DIVISION OF FAMILY  
 
§ 
SERVICES and the  
 
 
§ 
COURT-APPOINTED   
 
§ 
SPECIAL ADVOCATE,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Petitioners Below,  
 
§ 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
Submitted: February 28, 2003 
Decided: 
March 28, 2003 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of March 2003, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
In April 2000, the appellee, Division of Family Services (DFS), 
filed a dependency and neglect petition for custody against the appellant, 
Meta A. Riddle (Riddle), with respect to her two minor children.  In August 
2002, DFS filed a petition for the termination of Riddle’s  parental rights 
(TPR).   
(2) 
On December 31, 2002, the Family Court issued a “permanency 
order” in the dependency and neglect case, approving a change of goal from 
 
2
reunification to termination of parental rights.  The Family Court directed 
that the case would proceed to trial on the TPR petition.  The TPR hearing is 
scheduled for April 3, 2003. 
 
(3) 
On January 29, 2003, Riddle filed a notice of appeal from the 
Family Court’s December 31 permanency order.  On February 4, 2003, the 
Clerk issued a notice directing Riddle to show cause why the appeal should 
not be dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) for Riddle’s failure 
to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an 
apparent interlocutory order.  Similarly, on February 10, 2003, DFS filed a 
motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Family Court’s December 
31 decision is interlocutory, and Riddle had not complied with the 
requirements of Rule 42.   
(4) 
Riddle has filed a response in opposition to the motion to 
dismiss as well as a response to the notice to show cause.  The appellee, 
Court-Appointed Special Advocate, has filed a response in support of DFS’ 
motion to dismiss.  DFS has filed a reply to Riddle’s response to the motion 
to dismiss. 
 
3
 
(5) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the jurisdiction of this Court 
is limited to the review of final judgments of trial courts.1  An order is 
deemed final if the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order 
be the court’s “final act” in the case.2    
(6) 
The Family Court did not intend for the December 31 
permanency order to be the court’s final act in this case.  The decision 
clearly anticipates further action in the Family Court before Riddle’s 
parental rights are finally determined.  Consequently, because the December 
31 decision is not a final order, and Riddle did not attempt to comply with 
the requirements of Rule 42, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is hereby 
DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 42. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
1 J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corporation of Delaware v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 
A.2d 648, 650 (1973). 
2 Id. at 650.