Title: Postles v. Division of Child Enforcement
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 322, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 17, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ARVIL POSTLES,
'
'
No.  322, 2001
Respondent Below,
'
Appellant,
'
Court BelowBFamily Court of
'
the State of Delaware in and
v.
'
for Kent County.
'
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT
'
ENFORCEMENT, on behalf of
'
ARNIESE SCOTT,
'
'
Petitioner Below,
'
Case No.  CK93-4296
Appellee.
'
Petition No.  99-17913
Submitted: August 16, 2001
Decided:
October 17, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 17th day of October 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On July 12, 2001, the appellant, Arvil Postles, filed a pro se notice of
appeal from a Family Court Commissioner=s child support order dated July 9, 2001,
and the Commissioner=s order of civil contempt dated July 9, 2001, that committed
Postles to the custody of the Department of Correction.1  By notice dated July 13,
2001, the Clerk directed Postles to show cause why this appeal should not be
                                                 
1On October 1, 2001, Postles= commitment was suspended, and he was released from home
confinement.  DCSE/Scott v.  Postles, Del.  Fam., C.A. No.  CK93-4296, Horsey, C.  (Oct.  1,
2001).
2
dismissed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) for his failure to comply with
Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.
(2)
Postles filed his response to the notice to show cause on August 16,
2001.  In his response, Postles explains the reasons why he thinks the
Commissioner=s July 9 commitment order was improvidently issued.  Postles does
not, however, address his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42.
(3)
Assuming that Postles had complied with Supreme Court Rule 42 when
filing his appeal from the Commissioner=s July 9 orders, his appeal would still be
subject to dismissal.2  This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal B
any appeal B from an order of a Family Court Commissioner.3  The appellate
jurisdiction of this Court over civil proceedings in the Family Court is limited to
decisions issued by the judges of that Court.4
                                                 
2See, e.g., In re 1991 Chevrolet Camaro, Del.  Supr., No.  119, 1997, Walsh, J., 1997
WL 188347 (April 10, 1997) (ORDER).
3Richmond v.  Division of Family Services, et al., Del.  Supr., No.  480, 1998, Hartnett,
J., 1999 WL 734725 (Sept.  8, 1999) (ORDER), reh=g denied (Oct.  22, 1999) (citing 10 Del.
 C. ' 915(d); DCSE/Smith v.  Neal, Del.  Supr., 687 A.2d 1324 (1997); Redden v.  McGill, Del.
 Supr., 549 A.2d 695, 698 (1988); Harvey v.  Hamill, Del.  Supr., No.  193, 1995, Berger, J.,
1995 WL 389789 (June 23, 1995) (ORDER), reh=g denied (July 19, 1995)).
4Redden v.  McGill, Del.  Supr., 549 A.2d 695 (1988); 10 Del.  C. ' 1051(c); 10 Del.  C.
' 915(d).
3
(4)
The Court concludes, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(c), that
Postles= notice of appeal, on its face, manifestly fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the
Court.  In the exercise of the Court=s discretion, the Court finds that giving notice
of dismissal would serve no meaningful purpose, and that any response to any such
notice of dismissal would be of no avail.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED, sua
sponte, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(c).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele_________________________
Justice