Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

BOOTH v. MACKAY-BUSH

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Dec 7, 1999

Judgment

CaseIQ

RANDY J. HOLLAND, Justice

O R D E R

This 7th day of December 1999, it appears to the Court that: (1) The respondent-appellee, Barbara J. Mackay-Bush ("Mackay-Bush"), moves, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b), to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner-appellant, Thomas J. Booth, Jr. ("Booth"). Booth appeals from four orders of the Family Court. The first, dated December 2, 1997, denied Booth's petitions for rules to show cause regarding custody of and visitation with the parties' children. The second, dated October 9, 1998, established the parties' respective child support obligations. The third, dated

March 5, 1999, awarded attorney's fees to Mackay-Bush. The fourth, dated June 14, 1999, denied Booth's request to be provided with the hearing transcripts at State expense.

(2) The basis for Mackay-Bush's motion is: Booths failure to designate and provide that portion of the transcript of the proceedings below that will support his appeal; his failure to submit an appendix with his opening brief; and his failure to submit any materials for appellate review other than non-certified copies of the underlying Family Court orders. Mackay-Bush contends that the appeal must be dismissed because there is no adequate basis for evaluating the merits of Booth's claims.

Del. Supr. Ct. R. 9(e) (ii).

Del. Supr. Ct. R. 14(e).

Slater v. State, Del. Supr., 606 A.2d 1334, 1336-37 (1992).

(3) Booth's response is that: this Court granted his motion to designate the transcript out of time; it was not necessary to file an appendix; and he submitted a brief summary of what occurred in the Family Court proceedings. Booth, finally, states that he needs the transcripts "desperately" and requests this Court to order the State to pay for the transcripts, without cost to him.

(4) The record provided to this Court in an appeal "must include a transcript of all evidence relevant to the challenged finding or conclusion. In this case, Booth, as the appellant, has the burden of providing this Court with a transcript of those portions of the proceedings below relevant to his appeal. A civil litigant does not have an absolute right to be provided with a copy of a transcript at State expense. Even an appellant who is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, such as Booth, is required to make his own financial arrangements to obtain necessary transcripts.

Id. at 1336 (quoting Tricoche v. State, Del. Supr., 525 A.2d 151, 154 (1987)).

Lynch v. McCarron, Del. Supr., No. 352, 1996, Hartnett, J., 1997 WL 33110 (Jan. 13, 1997) (ORDER).

On April 30, 1999, this Court granted Booth's petition to proceed in forma pauperis, limited only to waiver of the docketing fee. Supr. Ct. R. 20(a).

Id.

(5) We find no abuse of discretion by the Family Court in denying Booth's request that the hearing transcripts be provided at State expense. Moreover, given Booth's failure to obtain the transcripts and to present a record for review in this case, this Court has no adequate basis on appeal to evaluate Booth's summary allegations of error. Appellate review by this Court, therefore, is precluded.

Jones v. Sopa, Del. Supr., 547, 1997, Veasey, C.J., 1998 WL 664964 (July 17, 1998) (ORDER).

Slater v. State, 606 A.2d at 1337.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family Court denying Booth free transcripts is AFFIRMED. The remaining issues on appeal are hereby DISMISSED.