J-S49039-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

V.S.K.

v.

Y.V.K. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 695 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered April 24, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at 

No(s): 2016-03340

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2018

Appellant, Y.V.K. (“Mother”), files this appeal, pro se, from the order 

dated April 23, 2018, and entered on April 24, 2018,

1

in the Cumberland 

County Court of Common Pleas, setting forth a Parenting Plan awarding her 

and V.S.K. (“Father”) shared legal custody and shared physical custody of 

____________________________________________

1 The subject order was dated April 23, 2018. However, the clerk did not 

provide notice pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) until April 24, 2018, and did not 

docket such order and notice until April 24, 2018. Our appellate rules 

designate the date of entry of an order as “the day on which the clerk makes

the notation in the docket that notice of entry of the order has been given as 

required by Pa.R.C.P. 236(b).” Pa.R.A.P. 108(b). Further, our Supreme Court 

has held that “an order is not appealable until it is entered on the docket with 

the required notation that appropriate notice has been given.” Frazier v. City 

of Philadelphia, 557 Pa. 618, 621, 735 A.2d 113, 115 (1999).

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S49039-18

- 2 -

their minor children, daughter J.V.K., born in June 2008, and son M.V.K., born 

in December 2006 (collectively, “the Children”). After a careful review, we 

affirm the trial court’s order.

Mother and Father were married on March 4, 2006, and they separated 

on April 29, 2016. Joint Stipulation of Facts, 3/22/18. On June 13, 2016, 

Father filed a Complaint for Custody seeking shared legal and partial physical 

custody of the Children. By order entered on July 18, 2016, after a conciliation 

conference on July 13, 2016, Mother and Father agreed to shared legal 

custody, and primary physical custody with Mother and partial physical 

custody with Father every other weekend. Order, 7/18/16. The parties 

participated in another conciliation conference on September 16, 2016, and 

pre-trial conferences on October 28, 2016, and December 8, 2016. The trial 

court appointed the Children a guardian ad litem, Diane G. Radcliffe, Esquire, 

by order entered on September 20, 2016. Order, 9/20/16. 

Thereafter, by order entered on February 14, 2017, subsequent to

another pre-trial conference, the court awarded shared primary physical 

custody on a week-on week-off basis with exchanges on Sundays at 7:00 p.m. 

The non-custodial parent was additionally entitled to custody on the 

Wednesday of their “off week” from afterschool until 7:00 p.m., as well as 

nightly telephone contact at 7:00 p.m. The order further postponed trial, 
J-S49039-18

- 3 -

pending completion of a custody evaluation,

2 and maintained the appointment 

of the guardian ad litem as being “in the best interests of the Children.” Order, 

2/14/17.

By order entered on February 16, 2017, the court appointed counsel for 

Mother. Order, 2/16/17. However, counsel’s petition to withdraw was granted 

by order entered on October 25, 2017. Order, 10/25/17. While the trial 

court’s order granting counsel’s petition to withdraw was appealed by Mother 

at Superior Court No. 1687 MDA 2017, said appeal was quashed by this Court

on December 7, 2017. Per Curiam Order, 12/7/17.

Subsequent to quashal of Mother’s appeal and remittal, and after a 

conciliation conference on December 15, 2017,

3 and a pre-trial conference on 

March 9, 2018,4the court conducted a custody trial on March 29, 2018.5 

____________________________________________

2 A custody evaluation was first ordered pursuant to order entered on 

December 8, 2016. Order, 12/8/16.

3 Pursuant to order entered on December 22, 2017, the court maintained the 

status quo. 

4 While Mother indicates suspension of and subsequent failure to reschedule 

or reconvene this conference in her Rule 1925(b) Statement, as well as her 

brief, this is not indicated elsewhere in the certified record. Mother’s Rule 

1925(b) Statement at 2-3, ¶¶6, 7; Mother’s Brief at 21. Further, we observe 

that the trial court issued a pre-trial order on March 12, 2018. Among pretrial instructions and directives, said order noted the commencement of trial 

on March 29, 2018. Order, 3/12/18. 

5 The matter was now being handled by the Honorable Thomas A. Placey 

pursuant to the recusal of the Honorable Jessica E. Brewbaker and assignment 
J-S49039-18

- 4 -

Father, who was represented by counsel, testified on his own behalf and 

presented the testimony of his mother, Paternal Grandmother, V.N. Mother, 

who appeared pro se, testified on her own behalf. Additionally, the Children’s 

guardian ad litem was in attendance and testified and presented her report.

By order dated April 23, 2018, and entered on April 24, 2018, the court 

entered a Parenting Plan, finding it in the Children’s best interests that the 

parties share legal and physical custody of the Children. Order, 4/24/18, at 

1-3. As to physical custody, the court ordered physical custody on a week-on 

week-off basis, with exchanges on Fridays after school or, if there is no school, 

5:00 p.m. Additionally, the non-custodial parent was to have the Children on 

Wednesday from after school until 7:00 p.m. during their “off” week. The 

order further included a default holiday and special days schedule, should the 

parties not agree to one, as well as provisions with regard to communication 

and conduct. Id. at 3-4. In coming to this conclusion, the court analyzed the 

custody factors set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). Id. at 10-15. The court 

further recognized a pattern of “obstinate and vexatious behavior” on the part 

of Mother, as well as Mother’s focus on casting herself throughout the litigation 

as a victim with regard to her relationship with Father, rather than 

concentrating on what is best for the Children. Id. at 16-17. 

____________________________________________

to Judge Placey, as noted by order dated November 2, 2017, and entered 

November 3, 2017. Order, 11/3/17.
J-S49039-18

- 5 -

Immediately thereafter, on April 25, 2018, Mother filed a notice of 

appeal pro se. Mother filed a concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b) with this Court on May 12, 

2018.

6

 Prior to Mother filing her Rule 1925(b) Statement, the trial court issued 

a Response in Lieu of Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) dated May 1, 

2018, and entered on May 2, 2018. Noting that Mother filed an appeal within 

twenty-four hours, the trial court indicated that it considered the matter 

closed7 and ordered the file forwarded for appellate review upon completion 

of the transcript. 

On appeal, Mother raises the following issue for our review:

____________________________________________

6 Mother suggests that there was an order entered on April 30, 2018, which 

directed her to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement. Mother’s Brief at 9. However, 

upon review, it appears that Mother is referring to correspondence from this 

Court forwarding the docket. While Mother violated Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) 

by failing to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal 

concurrently with her notice of appeal, as Mother filed a statement only 

seventeen days later and there is no assertion of any prejudice, we do not 

quash or dismiss on this basis. See In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 747 

(Pa.Super. 2009) (holding that failure to file a 1925(b) concurrently with a 

children’s fast track appeal is considered a defective notice of appeal, to be 

disposed of on a case by case basis, but did not result in dismissal or quashal 

where there was no prejudice to the other parties as a result of the late filing);

Cf. Mudge v. Mudge, 6 A.3d 1031 (Pa.Super. 2011) and J.M.R. v. J.M., 1 

A.3d 902 (Pa.Super. 2010) (failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors 

complained of on appeal, when ordered by the Superior Court, will result in a 

waiver of all issues on appeal); J.P. v. S.P., 991 A.2d 904 (Pa.Super. 2010) 

(finding that the appellant waived issues for appeal by failing to comply with 

the trial court’s order directing her to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement within 21 

days).

7 The court additionally observed that, at that point, the matter had not been 

designated a Children’s Fast Track matter. The matter has since been 

classified as such.
J-S49039-18

- 6 -

[W]hether the court may base its award of shared custody on the 

unsworn testimony of a non-party witness, and admit into 

evidence the work product of unsworn witnesses not subject to

cross-examination[?]

Mother’s Brief at 6.

Initially, we note that, in custody cases under the Child Custody Act, 

(“the Act”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5321-5340, our standard of review is as follows:

In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type

and our standard is abuse of discretion. We must accept findings 

of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of 

record, as our role does not include making independent factual 

determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility 

and weight of the evidence, we must defer to the presiding trial 

judge who viewed and assessed the witnesses first-hand. 

However, we are not bound by the trial court’s deductions or 

inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether 

the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the 

evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial 

court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in 

light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.

C.R.F. v. S.E.F., 45 A.3d 441, 443 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

The paramount concern in any custody case decided under the Act is 

the best interests of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5328, 5338. Section 

5328(a) sets forth the best interest factors that the trial court must consider. 

See E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73, 79-80 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2011). Specifically, 

Section 5328(a) of the Act provides as follows:

§ 5328. Factors to consider when awarding custody

(a) Factors.—In ordering any form of custody, the court shall 

determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant 

factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which 

affect the safety of the child, including the following:
J-S49039-18

- 7 -

(1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit 

frequent and continuing contact between the child and another 

party. 

(2) The present and past abuse committed by a party or 

member of the party’s household, whether there is a continued 

risk of harm to the child or an abused party and which party can 

better provide adequate physical safeguards and supervision of 

the child. 

(2.1) The information set forth in section 5329.1(a)(1) and 

(2) (relating to consideration of child abuse and involvement with 

protective services). 

(3) The parental duties performed by each party on behalf 

of the child. 

(4) The need for stability and continuity in the child’s 

education, family life and community life.

(5) The availability of extended family.

(6) The child’s sibling relationships.

(7) The well-reasoned preference of the child, based on the 

child’s maturity and judgment.

(8) The attempts of a parent to turn the child against the 

other parent, except in cases of domestic violence where 

reasonable safety measures are necessary to protect the child 

from harm.

(9) Which party is more likely to maintain a loving, stable, 

consistent and nurturing relationship with the child adequate for 

the child’s emotional needs.

(10) Which party is more likely to attend to the daily 

physical, emotional, developmental, educational and special 

needs of the child.

(11) The proximity of the residences of the parties.

(12) Each party’s availability to care for the child or ability 

to make appropriate child-care arrangements.

(13) The level of conflict between the parties and the 

willingness and ability of the parties to cooperate with one 

another. A party’s effort to protect a child from abuse by another 

party is not evidence of unwillingness or inability to cooperate with 

that party.
J-S49039-18

- 8 -

(14) The history of drug or alcohol abuse of a party or 

member of a party’s household.

(15) The mental and physical condition of a party or 

member of a party’s household.

(16) Any other relevant factor.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a).

In this case, in its order, the trial court analyzed and addressed each 

factor pursuant to Section 5328(a) and the Children’s best interests. Order, 

4/24/18, at 10-15, ¶7. Notwithstanding, before addressing the merits of 

Mother’s appeal and any issues raised, we determine whether the issues have 

been properly preserved for our review. See Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 

588 Pa. 218, 903 A.2d 1178 (2006) (holding this Court may sua sponte

determine whether issues have been properly preserved for appeal). 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)(2)(i) requires an 

appellant in a Children’s Fast Track matter to submit a Concise Statement of 

Errors Complained of on Appeal along with the Notice of Appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)(2)(i) (“The concise statement of errors complained of on appeal shall 

be filed and served with the notice of appeal required by Rule 905. . . .”).

Pursuant to subsection (b), Rule 1925 relevantly provides: 

(i) The Statement shall set forth only those rulings or errors that 

the appellant intends to challenge.

(ii) The Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or error that 

the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify 

all pertinent issues for the judge. The judge shall not require the 

citation to authorities; however, appellant may choose to include 

pertinent authorities in the Statement.
J-S49039-18

- 9 -

***

(iv) The Statement should not be redundant or provide lengthy 

explanations as to any error. Where non-redundant, non-frivolous 

issues are set forth in an appropriately concise manner, the 

number of errors raised will not alone be grounds for finding 

waiver.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i), (ii), (iv).

Pennsylvania Courts have repeatedly held that an appellant waives all 

matters for review where he or she identifies an outrageous number of issues 

in the concise statement. See Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86 (Pa.Super. 2005)

(holding seven page, twenty-nine issue statement resulted in waiver); Kanter 

v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 (Pa.Super. 2004) (finding fifteen page, fifty-five 

issue statement resulted in waiver). However, “the number of issues raised 

in a Rule 1925(b) statement does not, without more, provide a basis upon 

which to deny appellate review where an appeal otherwise complies with the 

mandates of appellate practice.” Mahonski v. Engel, 145 A.3d 175, 181 

(Pa.Super. 2016) (quotation marks and quotation omitted). 

Moreover, this Court has held:

Rule 1925 is intended to aid [lower court] judges in identifying 

and focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on 

appeal. Rule 1925 is thus a crucial component of the appellate 

process. When a court has to guess what issues an appellant is 

appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review. When an 

appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the 

issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the [lower] court is 

impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to 

those issues. In other words, a concise statement which is too 

vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is 

the functional equivalent of no concise statement at all.
J-S49039-18

- 10 -

Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quotation 

omitted).

Accordingly, this Court has concluded that the submission of a Rule 

1925(b) statement which is so redundant, vague, incoherent, or confusing as 

to prevent the lower court from engaging in a meaningful analysis results in 

waiver of all claims presented. Mahonski, supra (finding waiver of all claims 

where statement was overly vague, redundant, and contained multiple subissues); Ray, supra (finding waiver of all claims where the appellant failed to 

identify his claims in an adequate and concise manner).

Further, our Rules of Appellate Procedure delineate certain briefing 

requirements on appeal. Specifically, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 2111:

(a) General rule.--The brief of the appellant, except as 

otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the following 

matters, separately and distinctly entitled and in the following 

order:

(1) Statement of jurisdiction.

(2) Order or other determination in question.

(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the 

standard of review.

(4) Statement of the questions involved.

(5) Statement of the case.

(6) Summary of argument.

(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to 

challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if 

applicable.

(8) Argument for appellant.

(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
J-S49039-18

- 11 -

(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in Subdivisions 

(b) and (c) of this rule.

(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement of 

errors complained of on appeal, filed with the trial 

court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that 

no order requiring a statement of errors complained 

of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was 

entered.

(b) Opinions below.--There shall be appended to the brief a 

copy of any opinions delivered by any court or other government 

unit below relating to the order or other determination under 

review, if pertinent to the questions involved. If an opinion has 

been reported, that fact and the appropriate citation shall also be 

set forth.

(c) Pleadings.--When pursuant to Rule 2151(c) (original 

hearing cases) the parties are not required to reproduce the 

record, and the questions presented involve an issue raised by the 

pleadings, a copy of the relevant pleadings in the case shall be 

appended to the brief.

(d) Brief of the Appellant.--In the Superior Court, there shall 

be appended to the brief of the appellant a copy of the statement 

of errors complained of on appeal, filed with the trial court 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). If the trial court has not entered 

an order directing the filing of such a statement, the brief shall 

contain an averment that no order to file a statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was 

entered by the trial court.[8]

Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (footnote added).

Rules 2114 through 2119 establish and set forth in detail the specifics 

as to each of the required sections of the brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2119. As 

to the argument section of a brief, Rule 2119 provides as follows:

Rule 2119. Argument.

____________________________________________

8 As indicated above, in children’s fast track matters, a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal is required to be submitted with the notice of 

appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
J-S49039-18

- 12 -

(a) General rule.—The argument shall be divided into as many 

parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the 

head of each part—in distinctive type or in type distinctively 

displayed—the particular point treated therein, followed by such 

discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent. 

(b) Citations of authorities.—Citations of authorities in briefs 

shall be in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 126 governing citations of 

authorities. 

(c) Reference to record.—If reference is made to the 

pleadings, evidence, charge, opinion or order, or any other matter 

appearing in the record, the argument must set forth, in 

immediate connection therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a 

reference to the place in the record where the matter referred to 

appears (see Pa.R.A.P. 2132). 

(d) Synopsis of evidence.—When the finding of, or the refusal 

to find, a fact is argued, the argument must contain a synopsis of 

all the evidence on the point, with a reference to the place in the 

record where the evidence may be found. 

(e) Statement of place of raising or preservation of 

issues.—Where under the applicable law an issue is not 

reviewable on appeal unless raised or preserved below, the 

argument must set forth, in immediate connection therewith or in 

a footnote thereto, either a specific cross-reference to the page or 

pages of the statement of the case which set forth the information 

relating thereto as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c), or substantially 

the same information. 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119. 

Rule 2101 provides as follows with regard to non-compliance:

Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material 

respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the 

circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they 

may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or 

reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal 

or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. 
J-S49039-18

- 13 -

We have held that an appeal may be dismissed and/or quashed where 

the deficiencies of the appellant’s brief are such that we are unable to conduct 

a meaningful review. Karn v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., 912 A.2d 329, 337 

(Pa.Super. 2006); Branch Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 

943 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 

(Pa.Super. 1993). Moreover, we cannot accord special relief to an appellant 

merely because of her pro se status. See id. As stated in Commonwealth 

v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011, 1013 (Pa.Super. 1996), quoting O'Neill v. 

Checker Motors Corp., 567 A.2d 680, 682 (Pa.Super. 1989):

While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a 

pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any 

particular advantage because she lacks legal training. As our 

[S]upreme [C]ourt has explained, any layperson choosing to 

represent [herself] in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable 

extent, assume the risk that [her] lack of expertise and legal 

training will prove [her] undoing.

In the case sub judice, we observe that Mother’s Rule 1925(b) 

Statement is eleven pages and consists of thirty-two points of alleged trial 

court error. The voluminous Statement is vague, redundant, and poses a 

burden to the court in contravention to the purpose of Rule 1925(b). See 

Kanter, supra. Upon closer review, while we acknowledge some potential 

narrowing of Mother’s issues, we find this minimal and decline to attribute the 

voluminous statement to mere inartful drafting. See Boehm v. Riversource 

Life Ins. Co., 117 A.3d 308, 319 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2015); Morris v. DiPaolo, 
J-S49039-18

- 14 -

930 A.2d 500 (Pa.Super. 2007). As such, we find Mother’s issues on appeal 

to be waived. See Jones, supra; Kanter, supra.

Further, with regard to her brief, Mother continues to hamper

meaningful review through presentation of a deficient brief. While Mother’s 

brief contains the requisite sections, as to the argument section of her brief, 

Mother commences with a lengthy twelve-page background throughout which 

she alludes to additional trial court errors not raised in her statement of 

questions involved. Mother then continues with her argument, presenting an 

additional twelve-page stream-of-consciousness, disjointed discussion, and 

again suggesting claims and issues far beyond her statement of questions 

involved. Although Mother offers headings and points of separation, these do 

not serve any beneficial organizational purpose, as they do not serve to 

confine Mother’s discussion to that which is stated. 

In addition, Mother’s statement of questions involved does not serve to 

limit and guide her headings and points of separation and, in turn, her 

argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Mother offers a sole issue in her statement 

of question involved, but presents numerous sections and subsections 

throughout her argument. Moreover, despite some citation to legal authority, 

in particular as to general, broad principles, Mother fails to provide the 

necessary citation to legal authority consistently throughout her argument. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b). Mother, likewise, fails to provide citation to the record 

beyond the background portions of her argument and fails to indicate, when 
J-S49039-18

- 15 -

applicable, where she raised such issue and challenge below. See Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(c), (e). 

Hence, Mother’s brief, as a result of its deficiencies, similarly fails to 

promote and allow meaningful review. In fact, taken in context, Mother’s 

behavior represents a course of misconduct throughout the instant litigation 

which suggests bad faith and an attempt to thwart the appellate review.

For the forgoing reasons, we find that Mother has waived all issues on 

appeal. 

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/11/2018