Title: Bailey v. Jackson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 428, 2015
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 6, 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MICHAEL A. BAILEY,1 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JACKIE J. JACKSON, 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 428, 2015 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  File No. CN08-05031 
§  Petition Nos. 13-38057, 14-05488,   
§  and 14-16798 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: August 31, 2015 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
October 6, 2015 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 6th day of October 2015, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 14, 2015, the appellant, Michael A. Bailey (“the Father”), 
filed a notice of appeal from two Family Court orders dated July 15, 2015 and July 
28, 2015.  The July 15, 2015 order required the appellee, Jackie J. Jackson (the 
Mother”), to answer the Father’s petition for a mental health evaluation (the Father 
was previously enjoined from filing claims without leave of the Family Court 
under 10 Del. C. §8803) and denied the Father’s request for certain medical 
records of the Mother.  The July 28, 2015 order required the Mother to submit to a 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
mental health evaluation after the Father is released from prison.  The orders arose 
in connection with the Father’s petitions for modification of visitation and custody 
of the parties’ daughter.      
(2) 
On August 18, 2015, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to show 
cause directing Bailey to show why this appeal should not be dismissed for his 
failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in filing an appeal from 
interlocutory orders.  In his response to the notice to show cause, Bailey 
acknowledges that his appeal is interlocutory, but contends that interlocutory 
review of the Family Court orders is necessary. 
(3) 
It is undisputed that the Family Court orders are interlocutory.  Absent 
compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, this Court is limited to the review of a 
trial court’s final judgment.2  The Father has not complied with the requirements of 
Rule 42.  Among other things, Rule 42 requires that a party first file an application 
for certification of an interlocutory appeal in the trial court.3  The Family Court 
docket does not reflect that the Father filed an application for certification or 
otherwise followed the procedures for certification of an interlocutory appeal under 
Rule 42.  Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the 
appeal must be dismissed.   
                                                 
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 
3 Supr. Ct. R. 42(c). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 
that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
Chief Justice