Title: Parish v. DFS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 456, 2014
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 31, 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
HANNAH M. PARISH,1 
 
Respondent Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DIVISION OF FAMILY 
SERVICES, 
 
Petitioner Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 456, 2014 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County, 
§   
§  File No. CK01-03651 
§  Petition No. 12-22733 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: December 30, 2014 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 31, 2014 
 
ORDER 
 
This 31st day of December 2014, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 21, 2014, the appellant, Hannah Parish, filed a notice of 
appeal from a July 23, 2014 Family Court order changing the permanency goal 
from reunification to termination of parental rights and adoption.  On November 
13, 2014, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice to show cause, by certified mail, 
directing Parish to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for her 
failure to file an opening brief and appendix.  Parish stated that she did not respond 
because she requested that all material be certified with signature and that she did 
not receive any motions. 
                                                 
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 
2 
 
(2) 
  On December 3, 2014, the Clerk issued a notice to show cause, by 
certified mail, directing Parish to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed for her failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in filing an appeal 
from an interlocutory order.  The notice to show cause was returned in an envelope 
marked “Return to Sender, Unclaimed, Unable to Forward.”  The notice to show 
cause was sent again, by first class mail, to the address provided by Parish.  Parish 
has not responded to this notice to show cause within the required ten-day period 
and therefore dismissal of this appeal is deemed to be unopposed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 
3(b)(2) and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Randy J. Holland     
Justice