Grant, Naomi v. Derek Tyson-Davis

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

NAOMI GRANT,1 §
§ No. 483, 2025
Respondent Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No. CN23-03309
DEREK TYSON-DAVIS, § Petition No. 25-11953
§
Petitioner Below, §
Appellee. §

Submitted: December 31, 2025
Decided: January 20, 2026

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) On December 1, 2025, Naomi Grant (“Mother”) filed this appeal from

a Family Court consent order, dated September 22, 2025, granting her joint legal

custody and visitation with her children. A timely appeal of the order would have

been filed by October 22, 2025. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing

Mother to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. In her

1
The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
response, Mother stated that incorrect information about filing an appeal and her job

prevented her from filing a timely appeal.

(2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2 Unless an appellant can

demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-

related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.3 Mother contends that

she was provided with the incorrect paperwork for filing a timely appeal, but the

documents she submits in support of this claim are dated after the appeal deadline

expired. Mother has not shown that her failure to file a timely appeal is attributable

to court-related personnel. Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception

to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor
Justice

2
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
3
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
2