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

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

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

Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).