J-S01032-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

S.C.

 Appellee

v.

S.P.H. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2286 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered July 18, 2019

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Domestic Relations at No(s): No. OC1707209

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JANUARY 24, 2020

S.P.H. (Father) appeals from the order entered July 18, 2019, which 

awarded both sole legal and physical custody of his son L.H., who was born 

in September 2013, to L.H.’s mother, S.C. (Mother). Due to deficiencies in 

Father’s brief, we dismiss this appeal. 

Mother and L.H. reside in Philadelphia, and Father is incarcerated 

hours away at SCI Huntingdon. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/2019, at 6. 

According to the trial court, Father has never met L.H. due to Father’s 

incarceration prior to L.H.’s birth for third-degree murder, aggravated 

assault, possession of prohibited firearms, and carrying firearms in public. 

Id. at 1 n.1, 6. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S01032-20

- 2 -

Although neither petition appears in the certified record, the docket 

indicates that Mother and Father had cross-filed pro se custody petitions in 

early 2018, each seeking some form of custody of L.H. In 2018, a custody 

master conducted a hearing, and an interim order was entered awarding 

Mother primary physical and sole legal custody of L.H. pending the next 

hearing. Following a hearing in July 2019 before the trial court, a final order 

was entered awarding Mother sole physical custody and sole legal custody of 

L.H. Order, 7/18/2019, at 1. According to the trial court, Mother appeared 

in person at the hearings, and Father testified by telephone from the state 

correctional institute where he is serving his 371⁄2 to 75 year prison 

sentence. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/2019, at 1-2, 11.

Father pro se filed timely a notice of appeal from the July 18, 2019 

custody order. The trial court ordered Father to file a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal, and Father complied.1

____________________________________________

1 Although Father failed to file his concise statement alongside his notice of 

appeal as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) for children’s fast track cases, 

we have accepted Father’s concise statement pursuant to In re K.T.E.L., 

983 A.2d 745, 748 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that the appellant’s failure to 

comply strictly with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) did not warrant waiver of her 

claims, as there was no prejudice to any party). By the trial court’s 

assessment, Father has waived two out of the three issues he presented in 

his concise statement by stating the issues in terms that are too vague to 

determine the specific error at issue. Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/2019, at 5-6. 

We are unable to make our own determination because Father did not 

include his concise statement with his brief as required by Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a)(11), and the concise statement was not forwarded to this Court as 

part of the certified record. Nevertheless, because we ultimately dismiss 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S01032-20

- 3 -

Upon review of Father’s brief, we determine that Father’s 

noncompliance with our rules of procedure forecloses any possibility of 

meaningful appellate review. “[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe 

liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers 

no special benefit upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 

245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003). “[A] pro se litigant must comply with the 

procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” 

Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(quoting Lyons, 833 A.2d at 252). “[A]ny layperson choosing to represent 

himself [or herself] in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, 

assume the risk that his [or her] lack of expertise and legal training will 

prove his [or her] undoing.” Commonwealth v. Gray, 608 A.2d 534, 550 

(Pa. Super. 1992) (quoting Vann v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of 

Review, 494 A.2d 1081, 1086 (Pa. 1985)). 

Father’s brief does not contain a statement of questions presented as 

required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4). His brief also is in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a)(1) (requiring a statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(2) 

(requiring a separate section for the order in question); Pa.R.A.P. 

2111(a)(3) (requiring a statement of the scope and standard of review);

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(5) (requiring a separate statement of the case); Pa.R.A.P. 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

Father’s entire appeal based on the deficiencies in his brief, we need not 

address waiver on this basis.
J-S01032-20

- 4 -

2111(a)(6) (requiring a summary of argument); and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8) 

(requiring an argument section). Although the brief contains some citations 

to the record and legal authority as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119, in context, 

the citations are largely unhelpful. This is because Appellant’s brief 

reproduces verbatim almost all of the text from this Court’s decision in S.T. 

v. R.W., 192 A.3d 1155 (Pa. Super. 2018), and periodically intermingles

facts and analysis from his own case without clearly distinguishing as such. 

As a whole, particularly without a clear statement of questions presented as 

required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4) and separate sections analyzing any such 

questions, Appellant’s brief is jumbled and difficult to follow, and the issues 

he presents to this Court are not clear. Accordingly, we conclude that 

Appellant’s utter disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure has left this 

Court without the ability to conduct effective review. See, e.g., 

Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 151 (Pa. Super. 1982) 

(declining to address merits of appeal because the brief was “so defective as 

to preclude effective[] appellate review”).

Based on the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal without consideration 

of the merits of Appellant’s complaints. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[I]f the 

defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are 

substantial, the appeal or other matter may be ... dismissed.”). 

Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
J-S01032-20

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/24/20