Title: Dorsey-Wilt v. Falcone

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SHARON DORSEY-WILT,1 
 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DUSTIN FALCONE, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ No. 376, 2021 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§     
§  File No. CK03-03022 
§  Petition No. 21-20655 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Submitted:   December 23, 2021 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   January 18, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.  
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the order on appeal and the parties’ positions regarding 
the interlocutory nature of that order, it appears to the Court that:   
(1) 
Respondent below-appellant, Sharon Dorsey-Wilt (“the Mother”), and 
petitioner below-appellee, Dustin Falcone (“the Father”), are the parents of a child 
born in 2013 (“the Child”).  Under a 2017 custody order, the parents shared joint 
legal custody of the Child, the Mother had primary residential placement of the 
Child, and the Father had regular visitation with the Child.   
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).  
2 
 
(2) 
On September 7, 2021, the Father filed a petition modify custody.  On 
October 4, 2021, the Father filed a motion for an emergency ex parte order and a 
motion for interim relief.  The Family Court denied the motion for emergency relief.  
On November 9, 2021, the Father filed another motion for an emergency ex parte 
order and an amended motion for interim relief.  The Family Court scheduled a 
hearing on the motion for emergency relief.   
(3) 
At the November 19, 2021 hearing on the motion for emergency relief, 
the Family Court heard testimony from the parents and a school district employee 
about the Child’s frequent absences from school.  The Family Court granted the 
Father’s motion for emergency relief and amended the 2017 custody order to provide 
for the Father to have primary residential placement of the Child in Pennsylvania 
and for the Mother to have regular visitation with the Child.  The November 19, 
2021 order also provided that further proceedings on the Father’s petition to modify 
custody would be scheduled in normal course. 
(4) 
On November 29, 2021, the Mother filed an appeal in this Court.  She 
also filed a motion for a stay of execution in this Court.  The Mother was informed 
that a motion for a stay of a execution must be filed in the trial court in the first 
instance. 
(5) 
On December 6, 2021, the Mother filed a notice of interlocutory appeal 
in place of the November 29, 2021 notice of appeal and an amended motion for a 
3 
 
stay of execution.  The Court directed the parties to provide their positions on 
whether the November 19, 2021 order is interlocutory or final.  The Mother contends 
that the order is interlocutory, but grants the final relief sought by the Father and 
should therefore be reviewed by this Court.  The Father contends that the order is 
interlocutory because a full hearing on the petition to modify custody is scheduled 
for February. 
(6) 
After careful consideration of the November 19, 2021 order and the 
parties’ positions, the Court concludes that this appeal in interlocutory and must be 
dismissed.  An order constitutes a final judgment when it “leaves nothing for future 
determination or consideration.”2  The November 19, 2021 order did not finally 
resolve the merits of the Father’s petition to modify custody.  A hearing on that 
petition is scheduled for February.   
(7) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court’s appellate 
jurisdiction is limited to final orders.3  The Mother has not complied with the 
requirements of Rule 42.  Even if the Mother had complied with the requirements of 
Rule 42, this appeal would not meet the strict standards for certification under Rule 
 
2 Werb v. D'Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992). 
3 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
4 
 
42(b).  The Mother may appeal once the Family Court issues a final order on the 
Father’s petition to modify custody.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura__________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice