Title: Dobbins v. DSCYF/DFS

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
NICOLE DOBBINS,1  
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DIVISION OF SERVICES FOR 
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR 
FAMILIES/DIVISION OF FAMILY 
SERVICES (DSCYF/DFS) 
 
Petitioners Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§   
§ No. 112, 2019 
§   
§  Court Below—Family Court  
§ of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File No. CN18-05559 
§  Petition No. 18-28820 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
  Submitted:  May 2, 2019 
 
 
 
 
       Decided:     June 26, 2019 
 
Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
After considering the notice of appeal from an interlocutory order under 
Supreme Court Rule 42, the notice to show cause, and the response, it appears to the 
Court that: 
(1) 
On March 13, 2019, the appellant, Nicole Dobbins, filed a notice of 
interlocutory appeal from a Family Court review hearing order, dated and docketed 
on February 26, 2019, in dependency and neglect proceedings involving Dobbins’ 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned a pseudonym to the appellant under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
four-year-old child.  The order stated, among other things, that the child would 
remain in the custody of DSCYF/DFS, Dobbins’ counsel was discharged and new 
counsel would be appointed, and a pre-permanency hearing was scheduled for May 
13, 2019.  After Dobbins did not file a supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal 
under Rule 42(d)(iii) as she was directed to do and a review of the Family Court 
docket revealed that Dobbins had not filed an application for certification of her 
interlocutory appeal in the Family Court, the Clerk issued a notice directing Dobbins 
to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with 
Rule 42.  In her response to the notice to show cause, Dobbins argues the substantive 
merits of her appeal, but does not address her failure to comply with Rule 42.   
(2) 
Absent compliance with Rule 42, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to 
the review of final judgments.2  Under Rule 42, Dobbins was required to file an 
application for certification of the February 26th order in the Family Court within 
ten days of that order.3  She was also required to file an application for certification 
in the Family Court before filing a notice of interlocutory appeal in this Court.4  
Instead she filed a notice of interlocutory appeal in this Court without ever filing an 
application for certification in the Family Court.  In the absence of Dobbins’ 
                                                 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c)(i) (“Such application shall be served and filed 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.”). 
4 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c) (providing that “[a]n application for certification of an interlocutory appeal 
shall be made in the first instance to the trial court”). 
3 
 
compliance with Rule 42, this appeal must be dismissed.5  Dobbins will have the 
opportunity to challenge the Family Court’s rulings when the Family Court enters a 
final judgment.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is 
DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
                                                 
5 See supra n.2.  Collins v. Div. of Family Servs., 2011 WL 6740413, at *1 (Del. Dec. 21, 2011) 
(dismissing appeal from order issued after preliminary protective hearing where the appellant 
failed to comply with Rule 42).