IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRUCE PORTER,1 § § No. 61, 2022 Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court of § the State of Delaware v. § § File No. CN19-04055 ROSIE TOWNSEND, § Petition No. 20-13074 § Respondent, § Appellee. § Submitted: March 15, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) On February 25, 2022, the appellant, Bruce Porter, filed a notice of appeal from a Family Court order, dated and docketed on December 13, 2021, resolving several matters ancillary to the parties’ divorce. A timely notice of appeal was due in this Court by January 12, 2022.2 The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Porter to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely

The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i). filed. In his response to the notice to show cause, Porter states that he was unable to file a timely notice of appeal because he contracted COVID-19 and is in very poor health.

(2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.4 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.5 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.6 (3) Porter does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that his failure to file a timely appeal in this case is attributable to court-related personnel. This appeal must therefore be dismissed.7

Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).

Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).

Ward v. Taylor, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1 (Del. Sept. 30, 2019); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486- (Del. 2012).

Ward, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1; Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).

See, e.g., Washington v. Div. of Fam. Servs., 2011 WL 6201770, at *1 (Del. Dec. 13, 2011) (dismissing untimely appeal where the appellant said she had been in ill health but had not shown that her failure to file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to court-related personnel).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice