Title: Charles v. Charles

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MELINDA CHARLES,1 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
BRIAN CHARLES, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 318, 2019 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  File No. CK11-02876 
§  Petition Nos. 19-18751 and  
§  19-18972 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 1, 2019 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
August 8, 2019 
 
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the response to the notice to show cause, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 23, 2019, the appellant, Melinda Charles (“the Mother”) filed 
a notice of appeal from two Family Court orders, dated July 22, 2019, denying her 
motions for emergency ex parte orders in her petitions for visitation and custody.  
The Family Court referred the Mother’s allegations to the Division of Family 
Services for investigation.  The petitions for visitation and custody remain pending 
in the Family Court.      
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).  
2 
 
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing the Mother to show 
cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with 
Supreme Court Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.  In her 
response to the notice to show cause, the Mother argues the merits of her appeal, but 
does not address the interlocutory nature of the appeal.   
(3) 
An order constitutes a final judgment when it leaves nothing for future 
determination or consideration.2  The Family Court orders denying the Mother’s 
motions for emergency ex parte orders are interlocutory because the Family Court 
did not finally resolve the merits of the Mother’s petitions for visitation and custody.  
Absent compliance with Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is limited 
to review of final trial court orders.3  The Mother’s non-compliance with Rule 42 
leaves this Court without jurisdiction to hear her interlocutory appeal.  The Mother 
may appeal once the Family Court issues final orders in the custody and visitation 
proceedings. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
Justice 
 
                                                 
2 Werb v. D'Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992). 
3 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).