Murphy v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families
This text of Murphy v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families (Murphy v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
SUMMER MURPHY,1 § § No. 242, 2023 Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § File No. 22-01-05TN DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR § Petition No. 22-00567 CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR § FAMILIES, § § Petitioner Below, § Appellee. §
Submitted: April 12, 2024 Decided: April 15, 2024
Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On July 7, 2023, the appellant, Summer Murphy, filed this appeal from
a Family Court decision, dated June 8, 2023, terminating her parental rights to two
of her children. On October 6, 2023, Murphy filed a motion under Supreme Court
Rule 26.1(d)(iii) to discharge her appointed counsel and to represent herself in this
appeal. The Court remanded this matter for the Family Court to conduct a hearing
1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Murphy’s waiver of
counsel and her request to proceed pro se on appeal.
(2) After holding a hearing and determining that Murphy’s waiver of
appointed counsel on appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the Family
Court returned this matter from remand on November 14, 2023. The Court granted
Murphy’s motion to proceed pro se and permitted her counsel to withdraw. The
Clerk’s Office issued a briefing schedule directing Murphy to file her opening brief
on December 20, 2023.
(3) On December 20, 2023, Murphy requested an extension until January
5, 2024 to file her opening brief. The appellee did not oppose the extension request.
The Court granted the extension request.
(4) On January 3, 2024, Murphy requested an extension until January 17,
2024 to file her opening brief. The appellee did not oppose the extension request.
(5) On January 16, 2024, Murphy requested an extension until February
12, 2024 to file her opening brief. The appellee did not oppose the extension request.
(6) On February 14, 2024, Murphy requested an extension until March 12,
2024 to file her opening brief. The appellee opposed the extension request. The
Court granted Murphy an extension until March 1, 2024 to file her opening brief.
2 (7) Murphy did not file her opening brief on March 1, 2024. On March 5,
2024, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice of brief delinquency to Murphy. The
notice warned that if Murphy did not file her brief within seven days the matter could
be resolved against her.
(8) On March 13, 2024, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing
Murphy to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to file
an opening brief. The notice to show cause was delivered to Murphy, as evidenced
by the certified return receipt filed with the Court, by March 21, 2024. A timely
response to the notice to show cause was due on or before April 1, 2024.
(9) On April 9, 2024, Murphy requested an extension until April 10, 2024
to file her opening brief. She stated that she initially had planned to file her brief on
April 9th, but needed one more day. The Court granted Murphy an extension until
April 11, 2024, but also ruled that no further extensions would be granted. Murphy
still has not filed her opening brief.
(10) Even if Murphy’s latest request for an extension is deemed a response
to the notice to show cause, Murphy has not established good cause for her failure
to file an opening brief. As the appellant, and following her counsel’s withdrawal,
3 it is Murphy’s duty to diligently prosecute the appeal. She has not done so, and this
appeal must therefore be dismissed.2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice
2 See, e.g., Carnevale v. State, 2023 WL 4760797, at *3 (Del. July 25, 2023) (dismissing appeal where the appellant had not established good cause for her failure to file an opening brief ); Proctor v. Ranger Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31883047, at *1 (Del. Dec. 27, 2002) (same).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Murphy v. Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-department-of-services-for-children-youth-and-their-families-del-2024.