J-S04018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

RICHARD C. GRATE

Appellee

v.

VENITA D. MANN 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2350 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered August 16, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Domestic Relations at No(s): 0C1302259

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED APRIL 28, 2023

Appellant, Venita D. Mann (“Mother”), appeals pro se from the order 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which awarded 

temporary sole legal custody of D.X.M. (“Child”) to Appellee, Richard C. Grate 

(“Father”), and denied Mother’s petitions for contempt.1 We affirm.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 By per curiam order filed January 20, 2023, this Court noted that Mother’s 

appeal from the order granting Father temporary sole legal custody was not 

a final and appealable order. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (stating final order is 

order that disposes of all claims and of all parties); G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d 

714 (Pa.Super. 1996) (stating custody order is final and appealable after trial 

court has concluded its hearings on matter and resultant order resolves 

pending custody claims between parties). See also J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 

1260, 1263 (Pa.Super. 2017) (en banc) (explaining that order granting 

temporary or interim custody is interlocutory). Thus, this Court directed that 

the appeal proceed “solely on the denial of Mother’s petitions for contempt.” 

(Order, filed 1/20/23) (emphasis omitted). 
J-S04018-23

- 2 -

A prior panel of this Court set forth some of the relevant facts and 

procedural history of this case as follows:

A custody order was entered in January of 2014 ..., when 

Child was five years old and attending parochial school in 

Philadelphia, where he lived with Mother and her older son 

and daughter. Father resided in Pennsauken, New Jersey, 

... with his wife, R.B.G. (Stepmother).

The [2014] order granted the parties shared legal custody, 

Mother primary physical custody, and Father partial physical 

custody on an alternating two-week basis. In week one, 

Father was granted custody from Friday, when he picked 

Child up after school, until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. In week 

two, Father was granted custody from Wednesday, when he 

picked Child up after school, until Saturday at 12:00 p.m.

[The parties filed] cross-petitions for modification of the 

[2014] custody order ... on December 23, 2014 [by Father], 

and Mother on July 30, 2015, wherein they requested 

primary physical custody. Mother also filed a petition for 

contempt against Father. These petitions were not included 

in the certified record. However, the record indicates that 

Father’s request was based on allegations that he will 

provide stability and structure for Child, particularly with 

respect to his education. Mother’s request was based on 

allegations that Child was sexually molested while at 

Father’s home .... Mother also alleged that Child gets sick 

while at Father’s house, including, but not limited to, 

respiratory infections.

The trial court held hearings on November 30, 2016, May 

17, 2017, October 31, 2017, January 30, 2018, September 

21, 2018, January 24, 2019, and March 19, 2019. During 

the hearing, the trial court consolidated the parties’ petitions 

for modification, contempt [(which both parties had filed)], 

and recusal [(which both parties had filed)]. Father was 

represented by counsel during the proceedings. Mother 

proceeded pro se during all but the first and final hearing 

dates. There were numerous exchanges between the trial 

court and Mother regarding Mother’s proffers of witnesses 

and documents.
J-S04018-23

- 3 -

The parties testified on their own behalf, and they presented 

testimony from multiple witnesses. In addition, the trial 

court admitted voluminous documentary evidence 

introduced by the parties in this case.6 The trial court also 

interviewed Child in camera on November 30, 2016, May 

17, 2017, January 30, 2018, January 24, 2019, and March 

19, 2019. 

6 In addition to the testimony, the trial court 

considered numerous documents that it admitted into 

evidence during the hearing. Those documents 

included reports from the Philadelphia Children’s 

Alliance (PCA)[,] the Philadelphia County Department 

of Human Services (DHS), Children’s Hospital of 

Philadelphia (CHOP), St. Christopher’s Hospital for 

Children, Division of Child Protection and Permanency 

in the State of New Jersey (DCPP), and the Joseph J. 

Peters Institute (JJPI). 

* * *

By final order dated March 19, 2019, and entered on March 

21, 2019, the trial court awarded the parties shared legal 

custody, Father primary physical custody, and Mother 

partial physical custody on alternating weekends from 

Friday at 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. The trial 

court directed that the custody transfers continue to occur 

at the 6th Police District building in Philadelphia, and if either 

party is late or does not appear, it shall be recorded on the 

police log forms, copies of which have been provided to the 

parties. Further, the trial court dismissed Mother’s petitions 

for contempt and denied her motion for recusal. 

V.D.M. v. R.C.G., No. 1117 EDA 2019, 2020 WL 398591 (Pa.Super. filed Jan. 

23, 2020) (unpublished memorandum), at *1-6 (internal citations and most 

internal footnotes omitted). On January 23, 2020, this Court affirmed the 

March 19, 2019 custody order. See id.

The trial court summarized the subsequent procedural history as 

follows:
J-S04018-23

- 4 -

Since the Superior Court’s affirmance of the March 2019 

order, the following orders, in relevant part, have been 

entered:

Order, 11/19/20: Mother’s petition for contempt filed 

3/9/20 is denied.

Order, 2/11/21: Mother’s petition for contempt filed 1/6/21 

is denied.

Order 6/3/21: Matter relisted by request of Mother to seek 

alternative counsel.

Order 10/18/21: Mother’s motion for recusal is denied; 

order of 3/19/19 remains in effect and parties may modify 

it as they agree; parties agree to attend co-parenting 

counseling; parties agree that [Child] will attend 

psychological counseling at the recommendation of his 

treating pediatrician; parties are not to interfere with 

counseling; parties shall participate in counseling only as 

requested by counselor; report from counselor to be 

provided at next listing regarding [Child’s] progress.

Order 3/7/22: Matter listed for protracted hearing on 

11/7/22.

Order 6/24/22: Mother’s motion for recusal filed 2/25/22 is 

denied; Mother’s petition for expedited relief filed 4/4/22 is 

denied; listed for hearing on 8/12/22 is Mother’s petition for 

expedited relief filed 5/12/22, Mother’s petition for 

contempt filed 5/12/22, and Mother’s petition for contempt 

filed 6/8/22.

Order 7/8/22: Mother’s petition for contempt filed 6/27/22, 

is listed for hearing on 8/12/22.

The hearing on August 12, 2022, was continued to August 

16, 2022, for completion of testimony. The four petitions 

decided by the court on August 16, 2022 are as follows:

1. Mother’s petition for expedited relief filed May 12, 2022. 

The petition consists of one hand-written paragraph and an 

addendum typed in small face detailing Mother’s repeated 

allegations, dating from 2013, of [Child’s] having been 
J-S04018-23

- 5 -

sexually abused at Father’s home and her repeated 

averments that her evidence has been continually 

disregarded by the courts.

2. Mother’s petition for contempt filed May 12, 2022. The 

petition alleges that Father failed and refused to relinquish 

custody of [Child] to Mother on multiple occasions: January 

through May 7, 2022; February 7, 2020 through March 9, 

2020. Attached was the same document that was the 

addendum to the petition for expedited relief filed May 12, 

2022.

3. Mother’s petition for contempt filed June 8, 2022. The 

petition alleges that Father failed and refused to relinquish 

custody of [Child] to Mother on April 30, May 13, and May 

27.

4. Mother’s petition for contempt filed June 27, 2022. The 

petition alleges that Father failed and refused to relinquish 

custody of [Child] to Mother on June 10 and June 24, 2022,

and that Father refused to schedule summer vacation time.

In addition to denying all of Mother’s petitions, the August 

16th order awarded Father temporary sole legal custody, 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(b) and Pa.R.C.P. 1915.13. 

The court acted on its own motion and granted Father 

temporary sole legal custody as special relief in order to 

enable [Child] to receive medical care and psychological 

counseling as soon as possible. The August 16th order kept 

in place the listing for the protracted custody hearing on 

November 7, 2022, that had been scheduled on March 7, 

2022. The November 7th protracted hearing will address 

Mother’s petition to modify filed March 13, 2022, Mother’s 

petition for contempt filed March 4, 2021, and Mother’s 

amended petition to modify filed on April 8, 2021. 

On September 13, 2022, Mother filed a notice of appeal; 

contrary to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i), she did not also file a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On 

September 15, 2022, the court ordered Mother to file a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On 

October 5, 2022, Mother filed a 36-page “concise” 

statement of errors complained of on appeal. As this 

statement was not concise within the meaning of Rule 
J-S04018-23

- 6 -

1925(b) and controlling case law, and would have resulted 

in a waiver of all issues on appeal, the Superior Court 

entered an order on October 12, 2022, directing Mother to 

file an amended concise statement of errors complained of 

on appeal by October 24, 2022. Mother filed a two-page 

single-spaced amended statement with the clerk of family 

court on October 21, 2022. ... 

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 11/1/22, at 1-4) (emphasis in original) (internal 

footnote omitted).

Mother raises the following seven issues on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court violated [Mother’s] constitutional 

right to due process of law? 

2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a petition 

for recusal based on showing of prejudice, improper 

demeanor, and bias towards [Mother]? 

3. Whether the trial court showed personal bias? 

4. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law by 

permitting [Father’s] witness to testify to hearsay of what a 

professional therapist stated without being certified as an 

expert while ... omitting medical records from a

psychological evaluator that were vital to the case? 

5. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider all the 

factors under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 as to what is in the child’s 

best interests? 

6. Whether the trial court erred in omitting several records 

and video regarding occurrence[s] of sexual abuse in 

[Father’s] home? 

7. Whether the trial court erred in failing to address all of 

[Mother’s] contempt petitions filed throughout the pendency 

of the modification hearings? 

(Mother’s Brief at xi). 

Preliminarily, appellate briefs and reproduced records must materially 
J-S04018-23

- 7 -

conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the 

appellant and are substantial, the appeal...may be quashed or dismissed.” Id. 

See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (regarding required content of appellate brief). 

Importantly, where an appellant fails to properly raise or develop her 

issues on appeal, or where her brief is wholly inadequate to present specific 

issues for review, a court will not consider the merits of the claims raised on 

appeal. Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding appellant 

waived claim where she failed to set forth adequate argument concerning her 

claim on appeal; appellant’s argument lacked meaningful substance and 

consisted of mere conclusory statements; appellant failed to cogently explain 

or even tenuously assert why trial court abused its discretion or made error 

of law). See also Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super 2006) 

(explaining appellant’s arguments must adhere to rules of appellate 

procedure, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived 

on appeal; arguments not appropriately developed include those where party 

has failed to cite any authority in support of contention); Estate of Haiko v. 

McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating rules of appellate 

procedure make clear appellant must support each question raised by 

discussion and analysis of pertinent authority; absent reasoned discussion of 

law in appellate brief, this Court’s ability to provide appellate review is 

hampered, necessitating waiver of issue on appeal). 
J-S04018-23

- 8 -

Additionally, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe 

materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit 

upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent 

[herself] in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that [her] 

lack of expertise and legal training will be [her] undoing.” Wilkins v. 

Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 

704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007).

Further, this Court has made clear:

Any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be 

deemed waived. ...Rule 1925 is a crucial component of the 

appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify 

and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.

[A] Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court 

to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional 

equivalent to no Concise Statement at all. Even if the trial 

court correctly guesses the issues Appellants raise on appeal 

and writes an opinion pursuant to that supposition the 

issues [are] still waived. 

Our law makes it clear that Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not satisfied 

by simply filing any statement. Rather, the statement must 

be “concise” and coherent as to permit the trial court to 

understand the specific issues being raised on appeal. 

Specifically, this Court has held that when appellants raise 

an “outrageous” number of issues in their 1925(b) 

statement, the appellants have deliberately circumvented 

the meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and have thereby 

effectively precluded appellate review of the issues they now 

seek to raise. We have further noted that such

“voluminous” statements do not identify the issues that 

appellants actually intend to raise on appeal because the 

briefing limitations contained in Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) makes 

the raising of so many issues impossible. Further, this type 

of extravagant 1925(b) statement makes it all but 

impossible for the trial court to provide a comprehensive 
J-S04018-23

- 9 -

analysis of the issues.

Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa.Super. 2007), aff’d, 602 Pa. 

147, 977 A.2d 1170 (2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Instantly, the trial court deemed all of Mother’s claims raised on appeal 

waived, reasoning as follows:

On October 5, 2022, Mother filed a 36-page “concise” 

statement of errors complained of on appeal. As this 

statement was not concise within the meaning of controlling 

case law, and would have resulted in a waiver of all issues 

on appeal, the Superior court entered an order on October 

12, 2022, directing Mother to file an amended concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal by October 24, 

2022. Mother filed a two-page single-spaced amended 

statement with the clerk of family court on October 21, 

2022. This statement also fails to be sufficiently “concise” 

and “coherent” such that the trial court judge is able to 

identify the issues to be raised on appeal.

(Trial Court Opinion at 9).2 

Because Mother’s amended Rule 1925 statement was insufficient to 

permit the trial court to identify the issues Mother sought to raise on appeal, 

Mother’s appellate issues are waived on this basis. See Tucker, supra. 

Additionally, many of the issues Mother purports to raise on appeal are not 

included in her amended Rule 1925 statement, constituting waiver on that 

ground as well. See id. Specifically, Mother’s amended Rule 1925 statement 

does not mention bias, the court’s denial of her recusal motion, or the court’s 

____________________________________________

2 Notwithstanding its waiver analysis, the trial court went on to address the 

issues the court could decipher from Mother’s Rule 1925 statement. (See id.

at 13-21). 
J-S04018-23

- 10 -

failure to consider the relevant custody factors, as she purports to argue in 

her second, third, and fifth issues on appeal. 

Further, even if Mother had not waived her issues for failure to properly 

preserve them in her Rule 1925 statement, they would still be waived for other 

reasons or otherwise afford her no relief. Significantly, Mother’s argument 

section in her appellate brief does not correspond to the seven issues she 

purports to raise in her statement of questions presented. See Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a) (mandating that argument section be divided into as many parts as 

there are questions to be argued and shall have at head of each part particular 

point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities 

as are deemed pertinent). More importantly, Mother cites no law in support 

of issues two, three, four, six, and seven on appeal, rendering those issues 

waived on that ground. See id. See also Lackner, supra; Estate of Haiko, 

supra; Butler, supra. 

The only issues for which Mother cites any legal authority pertain to the 

first issue raised in her statement of questions presented (regarding the denial 

of due process), and the fifth issue raised in her statement of questions 

presented (regarding the failure to consider the relevant custody factors). 

Regarding the latter issue, however, any challenge to the custody factors is 

not appropriate here, where the custody order on appeal was temporary in 
J-S04018-23

- 11 -

nature and not a final, appealable order.3 See (Order, 1/20/23); J.M., supra; 

G.B., supra. 

Regarding the first issue complaining that the court denied Mother due 

process, the court stated:

At paragraph 1 of her amended concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal, Mother avers that, the court 

abused its discretion by ruling on evidence that denied her 

a chance “to give her side of the story” and “prove she was 

telling the truth,” and that the court did not allow her to 

“present real evidence” and never allowed her to enter to 

“relevant evidence.” The record demonstrates that this 

issue is without merit as Mother was afforded adequate 

opportunity to present all relevant, admissible evidence in 

support of the four petitions pending before the court.

Mother’s admissible testimonial and documentary evidence 

was carefully considered by the court. The court’s decision 

was not influenced by the often-heated courtroom 

exchanges between Mother and Father’s counsel. The court 

did not act inappropriately in exercising its authority to 

maintain courtroom decorum and to facilitate the orderly 

presentation of each party’s case. Mother’s displeasure with 

the substance of the court’s rulings does not render them 

reversible error on appeal.

____________________________________________

3 The court explained:

The evidence presented at the hearings held on August 12, 

2022 and August 16, 2022, established that Mother has 

engaged in numerous actions which have caused a 

disruption in [Child’s] receiving therapy and psychological 

counseling. Providers have declined to provide services to 

[Child] due to Mother’s intrusive actions that were disruptive 

to the therapeutic process. In order to ensure that [Child] 

receive counseling, the court determined that special relief 

was necessary in the award of temporary sole legal custody 

to Father.

(Trial Court Opinion at 10). 
J-S04018-23

- 12 -

(Trial Court Opinion at 20-21). Our review of the record confirms that the 

court did not deprive Mother of due process during the relevant proceedings. 

See In re Adoption of J.N.F., 887 A.2d 775, 781 (Pa.Super. 2005) (stating

due process requires opportunity to be heard and chance to defend oneself in 

impartial tribunal having jurisdiction over matter). See also Pa.R.E. 611(a) 

(stating court has discretion to exercise reasonable control over mode and 

order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence). Here, the trial court 

afforded Mother an opportunity to be heard and to present her case, while 

also keeping order in the courtroom.4 Therefore, Mother’s issues on appeal 

are waived, not properly before this Court for review, or otherwise afford her 

no relief.

5 Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

4 To the extent Mother complains the court “hid” a petition for contempt that 

Mother filed on May 16, 2022, the trial court noted that “[t]he failure to list 

this petition for a hearing along with the three contempt petitions that were 

listed was inadvertent and Mother will have an opportunity to litigate its merits 

at a future hearing.” (Trial Court Opinion at 4 n.2). 

5 As the trial court properly observed: “Many of the exhibits, testimony, and 

argumentation presented by Mother are subject to application of the doctrines 

of law of the case and of collateral estoppel as they had already been 

considered by the trial court prior to entry of the order of March 19, 2019 and 

affirmed by the Superior Court at No. 1117 EDA 2019 on January 23, 2020.” 

(Id. at 10). 
J-S04018-23

- 13 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/28/2023