Title: Branson v. Wilson

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d), the names of the parties are pseudonyms
1
selected sua sponte by the Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KATHERINE A. BRANSON,
§
1
§
No. 116, 2006
Respondent Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Family Court
§
of the State of Delaware in and 
v.
§
for  Sussex County
§
MARTHA WILSON,
§
File No. CS01-04304
§
Pet No. 06-01331
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: March 30, 2006
Decided:
May 12, 2006
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
O R D E R
This 12  day of May 2006, upon consideration of the Clerk’s notice to
th
show cause issued on March 7, 2006, for the appellant’s failure to comply with
Supreme Court Rule 42, and the appellant’s response to the notice, it appears
to the Court that:
(1)
Martha Wilson, the guardian of two boys, filed an emergency
petition in the Family Court to modify the visitation rights of the boys’ mother,
Katherine Branson.  By interim order dated February 3, 2006, the Family Court
granted Wilson’s petition and limited Branson’s access to the boys to
See Supr. Ct. R. 42 (governing Court’s jurisdiction to determine appeals in civil
2
cases from interlocutory orders of a trial court).
Branson alleges that she has not seen the boys since January 2006 due to Wilson’s
3
refusal to comply with the supervised visitation schedule ordered on February 3, 2006.
Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982); see J.I. Kislak Mortgage Corp. v.
4
William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973) (providing that an order is
final if it is the final act in the case). 
2
supervised visitation at a visitation center.  The Family Court scheduled the
matter for a full modification of visitation hearing on August 15, 2006.
Branson filed this appeal from the February 3, 2006 order.
(2)
On March 7, 2006, the Clerk issued a notice, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 29(b), directing that Branson show cause why the appeal should not
be dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 when
taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.   Branson filed a response to the
2
notice of March 30, 2006.  Branson contends that the appeal “should be heard
and not dismissed” because of its “extreme nature.”    Nonetheless, she does not
3
address her noncompliance with the procedural requirements of Supreme Court
Rule 42.
(3)
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders.   The Family
4
Court’s order dated February 3, 2006, from which this appeal is taken, is not a
3
final order because it modified Branson’s visitation on an interim basis pending
the hearing scheduled for August 15, 2006.     
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this interlocutory appeal is
DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) for the appellant’s failure
to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele
Chief Justice