J-S12031-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.D., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.R., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 195 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered December 27, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Juvenile Division 

at No(s): CP-46-DP-0000107-2021

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.W.-R.., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.R., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 196 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered December 27, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Juvenile Division 

at No(s): CP-46-DP-0000108-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 29, 2022

Appellant, J.R. (“Mother”), appeals from the December 27, 2021 Orders1

entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas that denied the 

Petition for Contempt filed by the Montgomery County Office of Children and 

____________________________________________

1 The orders are dated December 23, 2021, but appear on the docket 

December 27, 2021. 
J-S12031-22

- 2 -

Youth (“the Agency”) and, inter alia, reordered supervised visitation between 

her children, eight-year-old N.D. and two-year-old K.W.-R. (collectively, the 

“Children”). Upon review, we dismiss this appeal because Mother’s argument 

is substantially underdeveloped. 

A detailed procedural and factual history is unnecessary to our review. 

Briefly, in May 2021 the Agency obtained emergency custody of the Children 

after Mother was incarcerated and Mother’s friend was no longer able to care 

for the Children. While in foster care, N.D. disclosed that Mother physically

abused him. On June 8, 2021, the trial court adjudicated N.D. dependent and 

ordered N.D. to remain in foster care. The court dismissed the Agency’s initial 

dependency petition regarding K.W.-R. and returned her to the care of Mother. 

Upon further investigation, the Agency filed a second dependency 

petition regarding K.W.-R. and commenced an adjudicatory hearing on August 

6, 2021. The parties were unable to conclude the hearing that day, and the 

court scheduled a second hearing date on August 20, 2021. However, in the 

interim, the court ordered Mother to make K.W.-R. available for supervised 

visitations with N.D., and the court prohibited Mother from participating in 

these visits. Order, dated 8/6/21. Mother filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 

which the trial court denied. Mother timely appealed. This Court quashed the 

appeal, concluding that the August 6, 2021 order was neither final nor 

collateral. Interest of K.W.-R., No. 1709 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. filed May 

13, 2022) (unpublished memorandum). 
J-S12031-22

- 3 -

On August 20, 2021, the trial court adjudicated K.W.-R. dependent, 

ordered physical and legal custody to remain with Mother, and ordered Mother 

to cooperate with Agency services. The court ordered Mother to, inter alia, 

undergo a psychiatric evaluation, arrange for K.W.-R. to be evaluated by the 

CHOP SCAN team,2 and cooperate with sibling visitation between K.W.-R. and 

N.T. for bi-weekly in person visits and weekly virtual visits. Order, dated 

8/20/21.

On November 8, 2021, the Agency filed Motions for Contempt of Court 

as to both Children, alleging that Mother refused to comply with court-ordered 

sibling visitation and has not complied with the court’s order to arrange a 

CHOP Scan Team evaluation for K.W.-R. On December 8, 2021, the Agency 

filed a Motion to Appoint Educational Decisionmaker for N.D. On December 9, 

2021, the Agency filed a Motion for Finding of Aggravated Circumstances in 

N.D.’s case. During this time, Mother moved to New Jersey with K.W.-R. and 

refused to disclose her address to the Agency or her attorney. 

On December 14, 2021, the court conducted a permanency review 

hearing and held hearings on the contempt, educational decisionmaker, and 

aggravated circumstances motions. The trial court granted the aggravated 

circumstances motion regarding N.T. and held the motions for contempt and 

educational decisionmaker in abeyance to give Mother time to comply with the 

court orders. The court scheduled a hearing for December 23, 2021 to take 

____________________________________________

2 The CHOP Scan Team identifies whether a child has been the victim of abuse.
J-S12031-22

- 4 -

additional evidence. In the interim, the trial court ordered siblings to have an 

in-person visit between December 20-23, 2021, Mother to schedule an 

appointment for K.W.-R. with the CHOP Scan team by December 17, 2021, 

Mother to cooperate with an Agency safety assessment by December 17,

2021, and Mother to cooperate with the New Jersey department of human 

services once the Agency made a referral. 

On December 23, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the outstanding 

contempt motions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the 

contempt motions and “issued a detailed order containing thirteen (13) 

numbered paragraphs summarizing the court’s most recent directives” on the 

docket for each child. Trial Ct. Op., dated 2/7/22, at 11. Specifically, the

identical orders denied the contempt petitions and ordered Mother to submit 

to a parenting capacity evaluation, cooperate with sibling visitation, have no 

contact with N.D., cease recording persons without their consent, cooperate 

with the Agency and service providers, and cooperate with the child protective 

service agency in New Jersey. Orders, filed 12/27/21. The court also retained 

jurisdiction over the matter, ordered the Agency to submit a referral to the 

State of New Jersey, scheduled the next permanency review hearing within 

thirty days, and ordered specific protocols for the Children’s appearance at 

permanency review hearing as well as sibling visitation during the hearing. 

Id. 
J-S12031-22

- 5 -

Mother timely appealed the orders denying the Agency’s contempt 

motions.3, 4 Both Mother and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. 

Mother raises the following issue for our review: “Whether the trial 

court’s December [27], 2021 order[s] went beyond the scope of relief sought 

by the movants in the contempt motion and the procedural posture of the 

case.” Mother’s Br. at 8 (some capitalization and punctuation omitted). We

find Mother’s claim of error waived because her argument is substantially 

underdeveloped. 

“The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each 

question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of 

pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. 

Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111 

(listing briefing requirements for appellate briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing 

argument requirements for appellate briefs). When issues are not properly 

raised and developed in briefs with arguments that are sufficiently developed 

for our review, we may dismiss the appeal or find certain issues waived. 

Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) See

Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial briefing defects may result in 

dismissal of appeal). It is not the role of this Court to develop an appellant’s 

____________________________________________

3 This Court sua sponte consolidated the appeals for review.

 

4

It is well settled that the denial of a civil motion for contempt is an appealable 

order. N.A.M. v. M.P.W., 168 A.3d 256, 261 (Pa. Super. 2017); MacDougall 

v. MacDougall, 49 A.3d 890, 892 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2012); Basham v.

Basham, 713 A.2d 673, 674 (Pa. Super. 1998). 
J-S12031-22

- 6 -

argument where the brief provides mere cursory legal discussion. 

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925 (Pa. 2009).

In her five-sentence argument, Mother fails to identify what, if any, 

portions of the orders in question are beyond the scope of relief sought in the 

contempt motions. See Mother’s Br. at 13-14. Moreover, Mother cites to 

legal authority to support one legal proposition, but fails to analyze and apply 

the cited case law to the facts of this case. See id. 

Mother’s failure to provide any legal framework to develop and support 

the issue she raises on appeal not only violates our briefing requirements, but 

more importantly, precludes this Court from effectuating meaningful appellate 

review. We decline to act as counsel. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 

Appeal dismissed. 

President Judge Emeritus Bender concurs in result.

Judge Bowes files a dissenting memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/29/2022