Title: Matter of Wright
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 275, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 25, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
§ 
PETITION OF THOMAS WRIGHT §   No. 275, 2003 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
 
Submitted: 
July 25, 2003 
  Decided: 
September 25, 2003 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and STEELE, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 25th day of September 2003, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On May 27, 2003, Thomas Wright filed a petition requesting this 
Court to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus directed to the Family Court.  
Wright asserted in his petition that he had filed a petition for custody of his son in 
the Family Court on June 6, 1997.  Wright asserted that “[t]o this date, no decision 
or reason has been rendered by the judge.”  Accordingly, Wright requested that a 
writ of mandamus be issued to compel the Family Court “to render a decision in 
this case, a reason for that decision, and a reason for the dramatic amount of time 
it has taken to resolve this case.” 
(2) 
Upon review of the Family Court docket, it appeared to this Court 
that the Family Court had entered an order dated February 25, 2000 awarding sole 
custody of Wright’s son to the child’s mother.  Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court 
issued a notice to Wright to show cause why his petition for mandamus should not 
be dismissed as moot. 
 
 
-2-
(3) 
Wright filed a response to the notice.  In his response, Wright points 
out that the Family Court’s February 2000 custody order indicated that the 
findings and conclusions in support of the custody decision would be forthcoming. 
 Wright contends, and the Family Court docket reflects, that the Family Court’s 
findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the February 2000 custody 
decision were not docketed until June 10, 2003, in apparent response to Wright’s 
petition for a writ of mandamus.  Accordingly, Wright asserts that his petition is 
not moot because he is entitled to an explanation for why Family Court took so 
long in deciding his case. 
(4) 
The record reflects that Wright has filed an appeal from the Family 
Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law dated June 10, 2003.  That appeal, 
No. 330, 2003, is proceeding before this Court.  The issues raised in Wright’s 
petition for a writ are matters that can be properly addressed by the Court during 
the ordinary course of appellate review.  The extraordinary writ process is 
inappropriate when the petitioner has another remedy available in the form of an 
appeal.1   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Wright’s petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
                                                                 
1 Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d 883, 885 (Del. 1965). 
 
 
-3-
 
/s/ E. Norman Veasey 
Chief Justice