HOLLAND, Justice:

On January 2, 1989, William Jess Barrentine ("Barrentine") appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal and related documents. Barrentine seeks to appeal a final order of the Superior Court dated December 6, 1989. Barrentine was not a party to the proceedings in the Superior Court, nor did he intervene therein.

The defendant-appellee, Carroll W. Griffith ("Griffith"), has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Barrentine lacks standing to appeal the order of the Superior Court. Barrentine has filed an answer to the motion to dismiss. Barrentine does not contend that he was a party to the proceedings in the Superior Court. However, Barrentine does contend that he can represent the interests of the parties, who cannot afford to hire an attorney. Barrentine is not an attorney.

Barrentine's effort to appeal the decision of the Superior Court must fail, as a matter of law, for two fundamental reasons. First, a nonparty has no standing to take a direct appeal or an interlocutory appeal to this Court. See Del. C.onst. art IV, § 11; 10 Del. C. § 960; Supr.Ct.R. 7. Cf. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541-49, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1331-35, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986). Second, only a member of the Bar of this Court, a party appearing pro se, or an attorney admitted pro hoc vice, may participate in an appeal in this Court. Supr.Ct.R. 12; Delaware State Bar Ass'n v. Alexander, Del.Supr. 386 A.2d 652 (1978).

The motion to dismiss this appeal must be granted. This appeal is DISMISSED.