*1 Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES , Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On October 21, 2021, the appellant, Travis Elliott, filed a notice of appeal from a Family Court Commissioner’s order reducing his child support obligation. On October 22, 2021, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice, by certified mail, directing Elliott to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for this *2 Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider an appeal directly from a Family Court Commissioner’s order.

(2) In his response to the notice to show cause, Elliott states that he intended the notice of appeal to be a cross-appeal of the request for review of the Commissioner’s order filed by the appellee in the Family Court. The notice of appeal refers to both this Court and the Family Court, but Elliott addressed and mailed the notice of appeal to this Court. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal directly from a Commissioner’s decision. ^[2] Elliott’s appeal must therefore be dismissed.

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

BY THE COURT: /s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice

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

[2] 10 Del. C. § 915(d) (providing that a party may appeal a Commissioner’s order to a Family Court judge); Fam. Ct. Civ. R. 53.1 (same). 2