Richards v. Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DOUG RICHARDS,1 Respondent BelowAppellant, v. SARAH WILLIAMS, Petitioner BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 247, 2014 Court Below Family Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County File No. CN13-03580 Petition No. 13-19197 Submitted: June 2, 2014 Decided: June 4, 2014 Before STRINE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 4th day of June 2014, it appears to the Court that: (1) On May 15, 2014, the appellant, Doug Richards, filed a notice of appeal from an April 15, 2014 Family Court order permitting the appellee, Sarah Williams, to testify by telephone at future proceedings in Delaware involving the parties child. (2) On May 16, 2014, the Senior Court Clerk issued a Supreme Court Rule 29(b) notice directing Richards to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order. 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). (3) On June 2, 2014, Richards filed a response to the notice to show cause. Richards s response reflects that Williams dismissed the custody petition underlying her motion to testify telephonically on March 18, 2014 and the Family Court cancelled the May 6, 2014 custody hearing on April 1, 2014. Richards does not indicate that Williams has testified telephonically pursuant to the April 15, 2014 Family Court order in a hearing that resulted in a decision adverse to him. At this time, it is unknown if such an event will ever occur.2 In the absence of an actual, live controversy between the parties, Richards s appeal should be dismissed.3 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29, that the within appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 2 If another petition is filed, Williams is permitted to testify telephonically over Richards objection, and an adverse final order is entered against Richards, then Richards can appeal at that time. 3 Stroud v. Dixon, 552 A.2d 476, 479-80 (Del. 1989).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
