NOT PRECEDEN TIAL

UNITED S TATES COURT OF AP PEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 1 9

- 3 1 0 6

___ _______

LIS A A. SMI TH

- GOODMAN,

Appellant

v.

TURNI NG POINTS FOR CHILDREN CUA9;

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA;

STEPHANIE ENGLISH, (OFFI CIAL CAPACITY);

KATL IN SULLIVAN, ( OFFICIAL CAPACITY )

____________________________________

On Appeal from t he United St ates Dis trict Court

for the E a s t e r n District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1 8

- c v

- 0 3 6 7 5 )

District Judge: Ho norable Juan R. Sánc hez

_________________ ______________ _____

S ubmitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

M a y 1 1

, 2 0 2 0

Before: K R A U S E

, M A T E Y a n d R O T H

, Circui t Judges

(Opinion filed July 17, 2020 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

* This dispositio n i s not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 doe s not

constitute binding precedent.2

PER CUR IAM

Lisa Smith

- Goodman appeals the Di strict Court’s or der dismissing her Second

Amended Complaint. For the reaso ns below , we will affirm the District Court’s

judgm ent.

T he procedural history of this case and the details of Smith

- Goodman ’ s claims are

we ll

- known to the parties, set forth i n the Di strict Court’s m e m o r a n d u m , and need not be

discussed at length . Brief ly, in her Sec ond Amended Complaint, Smith

- G o o d m a n

challeng ed state court proceed ings in which the C o u r t o f C o m m o n P l e a s o f P h i l a d e l p h i a

C o u n t y termin ated her guardi anship of a child who is not her biological daughter . She

argued that t h e C i t y o f P h i l a d e l p h i a ’ s policy of reuni t in g ch ildren with their biological

p arents d enied her due proc ess. Appellees filed motions to dismiss which the District

Court granted. Smith

- Go odman filed a tim ely noti ce of appeal, and we have jurisdiction

purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

In her brief, Smi th

- G oodman argues that she was den ied due process during a n

A ugust 2018 hearing that resulted in the suspension of her guardi anship of the chil d. She

asserts th at she a nd her attorney were sequestered du ring the August 2018 hearing and

not afforded due pr oce ss for the remainder of the pro ceedings . Smith

- Goodman,

h owever, did not include this allegation in her Second Amended Co mplaint a n d c a n n o t

r a i s e i t n o w

. Se e W e b b v

. C i t y o f P h i l a d e l p h i a

, 5 6 2 F

. 3 d 2 5 6

, 2 6 3 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( f a i l u r e

t o r a i s e i s s u e r e s u l t s i n w a i v e r ) ; United States v. Ant hony Del l’Aquilla, Enters. and3

Subsidiaries , 150 F.3d 329, 335 (3d Cir. 1998) ( “ [A]bsent ex ceptional circumsta nces, an

issue no t raised in district court will not be heard on appeal. ” ). W e n o t e t h a t S m i t h

G o o d m a n w a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y a n a t t o r n e y d u r i n g t h a t h e a r i n g a n d d i d n o t a p p e a l t h e o r d e r

su s p e n d i ng h e r g u a r d i a n s h i p

.

Smith

- G o o d m a n also argues i n h e r b r i e f that she was denied due process on

F ebruary 12, 2019, when the s t a t e c o u r t held an ex parte hearing a nd ordered her to have

no contact with the ch ild. This a l l e g a t i o n , however, was als o not included in the Second

Amended Com plaint filed months bef ore the hearing occurred. F o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n s a s

t h o s e d e s c r i b e d a b o v e

, w e d e c l i n e t o r e v i e w t h i s a l l e g a t i o n

. 1

Smi th

- G o o d m a n argues that at oral argument in the D istrict C ourt, Ap pellees

c o m m i t t e d f

r a u d o n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w h e n t h e y r e f e r r e d t o her a s a foster parent . She

claims she was not a foster pa rent becaus e she shared physical and legal custody o f t h e

c h i l d ; t h u s

, s h e a r g u e s

, s h e w a s e n t i t l e d t o d u e p r o c e s s . Howe ver, Smi th

- Goodman does

not clai m that she w as prevented from presenting her argumen ts t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t in

support o f h e r c o n t e n t i o n

. N o r d o e s s h e e x p l a i n h o w t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f h e r s t a t u s a f f e c t e d

1 S m i t h

- G o o d m a n s u b m i t t e d a c o p y o f a S u p e r i o r C o u r t o p i n i o n a f f i r m i n g t h e J u v e n i l e

D i v i s i o n d e n i a l o f h e r m o t i o n t o v a c a t e t h e n o

- c o n t a c t o r d e r

. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e S u p e r i o r

C o u r t

, S m i t h

- G o o d m a n w a s p r e s e n t f o r p a r t o f t h e F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 9 h e a r i n g a n d t h e n o

c o n t a c t o r d e r w a s r e q u e s t e d i n h e r p r e s e n c e

. A f t e r h e r m o t i o n t o h o l d t h e c h i l d ’ s m o t h e r

i n c o n t e m p t w a s d e n i e d

, t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d a r e q u e s t t o h a v e S m i t h

- G o o d m a n a n d h e r

a t t o r n e y l e a v e t h e c o u r t r o o m

. N e i t h e r S m i t h

- G o o d m a n n o r h e r a t t o r n e y o b j e c t e d

. T h e

S u p e r i o r C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t s h e w a i v e d h e r c l a i m t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t v i o l a t e d h e r

d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s

.4

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s s u m e d f o r t h e s a k e o f a r g u m e n t t h a t

S m i t h

- G o o d m a n d i d h a v e a p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t i n c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t

s h e h a d n o t b e e n d e n i e d d u e p r o c e s s

.

F i n a l l y

, S m i t h

- G o o d m a n a s k s u s t o r e v i e w t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d a n d d e c i d e i f h e r r i g h t

t o d u e p r o c e s s w a s v i o l a t e d

. H o w e v e r

, w e do not consider undeveloped arguments or

those not properly r aised and discussed in a brief. See Doebler s’ Pa. Hybrids, Inc. v.

Doebler , 442 F. 3d 812, 821 n.10 (3d Cir. 2006) (noting that “pa ssing and conclusory

statements do not pre serve an issue for a ppeal”) ; De S ilva v. DiLeonardi , 181 F.3d 865,

867 (7th Cir. 199 9) ( “A brief must m a ke all arguments accessi ble to the j udges, r ather

than ask them to play arc haeolo gist with the record.” )

F o r t h e a b o v e r e a s o n s

, a s w e l l a s t h o s e s e t f o r t h b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, w e w i l l

a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

. The Appell ees ’ motion s to stay a p p e a l a n d the

briefing schedule pending state court proceedings a r e denied

.