Title: Harrison v. Division of Youth and Family Services
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 477, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 2003

1The July 10 decision addressed the status of sixty-one matters that were pending
before the Family Court spanning eight different files and twenty-three petitions concerning
three of Harrison’s grandchildren.  In this interlocutory appeal, Harrison seeks to appeal that
part of the July 10 decision that denied her “Motion for Recusation.”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CAROL A.  HARRISON,
§
§
No.  477, 2003
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Family Court of
§
the State of Delaware, in and
v.
§
for Sussex County in File No.
§
26, 906; Pet.  Nos.  98-30468,
DIVISION OF YOUTH and 
§
98-30450, 00-16735.
FAMILY SERVICES,
§
§
Respondent Below,
§
Appellee.
§
 
Submitted: October 16, 2003
Decided:
November 10, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 10th day of November 2003, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
Carol A.  Harrison has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the
Family Court on July 10, 2003.1  By order dated October 16, 2003, the Family
Court refused Harrison’s application for certification of the interlocutory
appeal.
2A second “replacement” application was filed on September 17, 2003.
3Moreover, Harrison has not filed the supplemental notice of appeal that is required
by Supreme Court Rule 42(d)(iii).
2
(2)
Supreme Court Rule 42(c)(i) provides that an application for
certification of an interlocutory appeal must be served and filed with the trial
court “within 10 days of the entry of the order from which the appeal is sought
or such longer time as the trial court, in its discretion, may order for good cause
shown.”  In this case, the Family Court’s July 10 decision was mailed to the
parties on August 26, 2003.  Harrison filed her first application for certification
twenty days later on September 15, 2003.2  Harrison did not request an
extension of the ten-day filing period, nor did the Family Court find good cause
to accept the late filing.  Consequently, Harrison’s application for certification
was untimely filed.
(3)
Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound
discretion of this Court and are granted only in extraordinary cases.  In this
case, Harrison failed to follow the proper procedure for certifying an
interlocutory appeal to this Court under Supreme Court Rule 42.3  The appeal
could be refused on that basis.  Moreover, even if we assume that Harrison
complied with the procedural requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42, we
conclude that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the
3
substantive requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b), and the appeal should
be refused on that basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within
interlocutory appeal is REFUSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J.  Holland
Justice