Title: Painter v. Painter
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 377, 2020
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: January 11, 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SAMUEL PAINTER1,  
 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
LOUISE PAINTER, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
   § 
   §     No. 377, 2020 
   § 
   § 
   § 
   §     Court Below–Family Court 
   §     of the State of Delaware 
   §   
   §     File No. CN14-02909 
   §     Petition No. 20-13918     
   § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 30, 2020 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: January 11, 2021 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 
Justices. 
 
ORDER 
After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s 
response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On November 5, 2020, the appellant, Samuel Painter (“the Father”), 
filed a notice of appeal from an October 7, 2020 Family Court scheduling order 
issued in connection with the Father’s petition for the modification of the court’s 
previously ordered child visitation schedule.  Among other things, the Family 
Court’s order directed the Father to engage in mental health treatment prior to a 
 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
hearing on the merits of the Father’s petition, which is scheduled to be held on 
January 6, 2021.   
(2) 
The Clerk of this Court issued a notice to the Father to show cause why 
his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order.  The Father filed a response 
to the notice to show cause, but it does not address the interlocutory nature of his 
appeal.   
(3) 
An order constitutes a final judgment when it “leaves nothing for future 
determination or consideration.”2  The Family Court’s scheduling order is 
interlocutory because the Family Court did not finally resolve the merits of the 
Father’s petition for modification of the visitation order.3   
(4) 
Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 
jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final trial court orders.4  The 
Father’s failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 leaves this Court without 
jurisdiction to hear his interlocutory appeal.  The Father may appeal once the Family 
Court issues a final order in the visitation proceedings. 
 
 
2 Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992). 
3 Id. 
4 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 
 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice