Title: March v. David

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JARRETT MARCH and KATIE 
MARCH,1   
 
Petitioners Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
DANTE DAVID and DIANE 
DAVID,  
 
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 615, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  File No. CS06-01158 
§  Petition No. 10-01158 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 11, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 14, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 14th day of October 2010, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioners-appellants, Jarrett March and Katie March, have 
petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an 
appeal from an interlocutory order of the Family Court dated August 26, 
2010, ruling that the best interests of the child standard applies where the 
parental rights of the child’s biological father have been terminated and the 
                                                 
1 The Court sua sponte assigned pseudonyms to the parties by Order dated September 27, 
2010.  Supr. Ct. R. 7(d). 
 
2 
biological mother and stepfather have petitioned to modify visitation with 
the child’s paternal grandparents pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, §2413.  
 
(2) 
The petitioners filed their application for certification to take an 
interlocutory appeal in the Family Court on September 3, 2010.  On October 
7, 2010, the Family Court certified an appeal to this Court from its 
interlocutory order on the ground that the requirements of Rule 42 had been 
satisfied. 
 
(3) 
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the 
sound discretion of this Court.  In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has 
concluded that the petitioners’ application for interlocutory review fails to 
meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42 and, therefore, should be 
refused. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal 
is REFUSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice