Painter v. Painter
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SAMUEL PAINTER1, Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. LOUISE PAINTER, Respondent Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 377, 2020 Court Below–Family Court of the State of Delaware File No. CN14-02909 Petition No. 20-13918 Submitted: December 30, 2020 Decided: January 11, 2021 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. ORDER After careful consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On November 5, 2020, the appellant, Samuel Painter (“the Father”), filed a notice of appeal from an October 7, 2020 Family Court scheduling order issued in connection with the Father’s petition for the modification of the court’s previously ordered child visitation schedule. Among other things, the Family Court’s order directed the Father to engage in mental health treatment prior to a 1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). hearing on the merits of the Father’s petition, which is scheduled to be held on January 6, 2021. (2) The Clerk of this Court issued a notice to the Father to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in taking an appeal from an interlocutory order. The Father filed a response to the notice to show cause, but it does not address the interlocutory nature of his appeal. (3) An order constitutes a final judgment when it “leaves nothing for future determination or consideration.”2 The Family Court’s scheduling order is interlocutory because the Family Court did not finally resolve the merits of the Father’s petition for modification of the visitation order.3 (4) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final trial court orders. 4 The Father’s failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 leaves this Court without jurisdiction to hear his interlocutory appeal. The Father may appeal once the Family Court issues a final order in the visitation proceedings. Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992). Id. 4 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982). 2 3 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice 3
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.
