Title: Matter of Decker

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
 
§ 
PETITION OF LYNDSEY DECKER  
 
§  No. 333, 2004 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
 
§ 
OR PROHIBITION 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 23, 2004 
  Decided: October 5, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 5th day of October 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
Petitioner Lyndsey Decker, through her counsel, has filed a 
petition with this Court requesting the issuance of either a writ of mandamus or 
a writ of prohibition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43.  Decker was the 
respondent in a Family Court proceeding filed by Kyle Armedio, which 
resulted in Armedio being allowed temporary contact with the parties’ child.  
Decker seeks an extraordinary writ directed to the Family Court to: (a) prohibit 
the Family Court from allowing temporary contact hearings to be scheduled 
before the petition is served; (b) prohibit the Family Court judges from signing 
temporary contact orders before the 15-day review de novo period has expired; 
and (c) require that Family Court special masters be required to state the 
reasons for their decision on the record. 
 
 
2
(2) 
Counsel for the State, on behalf of the Family Court, filed an 
answer and motion to dismiss Decker’s petition.  Armideo’s counsel also filed a 
separate answer and motion to dismiss Decker’s petition.  Both responses assert 
that an extraordinary writ is inappropriate under these circumstances because 
Decker had an adequate remedy at law, which she failed to utilize.  We agree. 
(3) 
This Court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel a lower court 
to perform a duty.  As a condition precedent to the performance of that duty, the 
complainant must demonstrate a clear right to the performance of the duty, that 
no other remedy is available, and that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform its duty.1  A writ of prohibition, on the other hand, is the 
legal equivalent of the equitable remedy of injunction and may be issued to 
prevent a lower court from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction.2  Like a writ 
of mandamus, a writ of prohibition will not issue if the petitioner has another 
adequate remedy at law.3 
                                                           
1In re Hyson, 649 A.2d 807, 808 (Del. 1994).   
2In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988). 
3Id.  
 
 
3
(4) 
Decker’s petition in this case manifestly fails to establish that she 
had or has no other adequate remedy available to her.  The record reflects that 
Decker, along with her guardian ad litem, was present at the April 16 hearing 
before the Special Master and was aware that the Special Master recommended 
Armedio be allowed a 24-hour visitation period from April 17 to April 18 and 
that the remainder of the standard visitation guidelines should be ordered.  The 
Family Court judge review and approved the Special Master’s 
recommendations on April 19, 2004.  Decker’s counsel took no action until 
June 17, 2004, when she filed a motion to vacate, which was denied on July 2, 
2004.  Decker waited until August 2, 2004 to file her petition for an 
extraordinary writ with this Court.   
(5) 
Decker could have filed a petition 
for a review de novo within 15 days of the Special Master’s order.4  
Alternatively, she could have filed a motion to reargue within ten days of the 
Family Court’s order.5  Decker took no action for nearly two months.  
Moreover, Decker still has a right to appeal to this Court once the Family Court 
has issued its final order on custody and visitation in this matter.  This Court 
                                                           
4 10 Del. C. § 913(d)(1). 
5 Del. Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e). 
 
 
4
will not allow the extraordinary writ process to be distorted into a substitute for 
appellate review.6    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Decker’s petition for a writ 
of mandamus or prohibition is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
Justice 
                                                           
6 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883 (Del. 1965).