J-A27007-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MELODY BOLTERSDORF

v.

STEPHEN BOLTERSDORF, TERRY 

IRVIN AND GLORIA IRVIN

APPEAL OF: MELODY ELLBERGER, 

F/K/A MELODY BOLTERSDORF

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 952 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered June 6, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 

2017-FC-002455-03

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 23, 2022

Melody Ellberger f/k/a Melody Boltersdorf (“Mother”) appeals pro se

from the June 6, 2022 Order that granted the Petition for Modification of 

Custody filed by Terry and Gloria Irvin (“Paternal Grandparents”) and reduced 

Mother’s partial physical custody of her children, M.B. and N.B. (collectively, 

“Children”), to one weekend per month. Upon review, we dismiss this appeal

due to the substantial defects in Mother’s Brief to this Court.

The relevant procedural and factual history is as follows. Mother and 

Stephen Boltersdorf (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) are parents to M.B., 

born in June 2009, and N.B., born in August 2010. Children have special 

needs and suffer from cerebral palsy and autism, respectively, among other 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A27007-22

- 2 -

disabilities. In 2017, Children were removed from Parents and placed in the 

care of Paternal Grandparents after the Chester County Children and Youth

Services investigated allegations of truancy, neglect, and unsanitary living 

conditions.1 On August 17, 2017, the juvenile court awarded Paternal 

Grandparents sole legal custody and primary physical custody of Children,

Mother partial physical custody every Friday evening, and Father partial 

physical custody as agreed upon between Paternal Grandparents and Father. 

On June 22, 2018, upon consideration of Mother’s Complaint for 

Custody, the trial court ordered Paternal Grandparents to retain sole legal 

custody2 and primary physical custody, but increased Mother’s partial physical 

custody to every other weekend. During this time, Father lived with Children 

and Paternal Grandparents and continued to have periods of partial physical 

custody upon agreement of Paternal Grandparents. 

On November 1, 2021, Paternal Grandparents filed a Petition to Modify 

Custody seeking to decrease Mother’s custodial time alleging, inter alia, that 

Mother takes only one of the siblings for visits which upsets Children, 

frequently cancels her custody time, interferes in Children’s medical care to 

____________________________________________

1 Multiple animals lived in the home and contributed to the unsanitary living 

conditions, including numerous cats, a pot-belly pig, bearded dragons, and 

chickens.

2 Specifically, the order states: “The [c]ourt awards sole legal custody and 

primary physical custody to Paternal Grandparents. . . Notwithstanding that 

Paternal Grandparents have sole legal custody, Father and Mother shall have 

access to the children’s medical, dental, religious, and school records[.]” Final 

Order of Custody, 6/22/18 (emphasis omitted).
J-A27007-22

- 3 -

Children’s detriment, and lives in a camper moving from campground to 

campground refusing to provide a physical location while N.B. is in her 

custody. See Petition for Modification, 11/1/21, at ¶ 6, 7, 8. 

On June 6, 2022, after a custody trial, the trial court issued an Opinion 

and Final Order of Custody, which granted Paternal Grandparents’ petition and 

reduced Mother’s custodial time to one weekend per month. The trial court 

also noted that Mother is a participant in the Address Confidentiality Program 

and ordered that pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6708(3), the Office of Victim 

Advocate shall provide Mother’s actual address to Paternal Grandparents’ 

counsel. The court further ordered that Paternal Grandparents’ counsel “shall 

not disclose the address of Mother absent an emergency.” Order, 6/6/22, at 

10-11. 

Mother filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal and a contemporaneous

Rule 1925(b) statement, raising five issues. The trial court filed a responsive 

Rule 1925(a) opinion. 

In her brief to this Court, Mother raises eight issues for our review. See

Mother’s Br. at 23-25. For the reasons discussed infra, we are unable to 

provide meaningful review of any of them.

Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or

dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth v. 

Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. 

“[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro
J-A27007-22

- 4 -

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). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal 

proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise 

and legal training will be his undoing.” Adams, 882 A.2d at 498.

It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be 

developed with citation to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P 

2119(a)-(c). This Court will address only those issues properly presented and 

developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of appellate 

procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101-2119. As this Court has made clear, we “will not 

act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 

2007). “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour 

the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189 

A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018). 

Here, we are unable to provide meaningful review. Comprised primarily 

of personal grievances untethered to legal analysis and citations to the record, 

Mother’s brief utterly fails to comport with our rules of appellate procedure. 

As a result, our review is fatally hampered and, accordingly, we are 

constrained to dismiss this appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

Specifically, in her Statement of the Case, Mother fails to reference the 

record as required by Rule 2117(a)(4), and impermissibly includes an attempt 

at persuasive argument in violation of Rule 2117(b). See Mother’s Br. at 25-
J-A27007-22

- 5 -

27. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)-(b) (setting forth requirements for the 

statement of the case section). 

In addition, Mother’s Argument section is markedly underdeveloped

and, at times, impossible to decipher. Significantly, Mother fails to divide the 

argument into “as many parts as there are questions to be argued” pursuant 

to Rule 2119(a) and, instead, purports to include all eight of her claims in one 

disorganized and rambling Argument section. Moreover, although Mother

randomly cites to boilerplate legal authority throughout the brief, she fails to 

analyze and apply the cited law to the facts of this case as required by Rule

2119(a)-(c). See, e.g., Mother’s Br. at 40-41, 43-45. Most fatal to our 

review, Mother fails to provide any references to the record as required by 

Rule 2119(c). See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (a)-(c) (describing argument 

section requirements).

In sum, Mother’s violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure preclude 

this Court’s meaningful review. We decline to scour the record and may not

develop arguments on Mother’s behalf. Accordingly, we are constrained to 

dismiss this appeal.3 

Even if this Court were able to effectuate meaningful appellate review,

we would affirm. We agree with the reasoning of the trial court in its well-

____________________________________________

3 Mother’s December 3, 2022 Motion for Sanctions is denied. 
J-A27007-22

- 6 -

written and comprehensive June 6, 2022 and July 20, 2022 opinions and 

discern no abuse of discretion.4 

Appeal dismissed. Motion for Sanctions denied.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/23/2022

____________________________________________

4 Moreover, if this court were not constrained to dismiss this appeal due to 

briefing defects, we would be unable to address Mother’s final three issues 

contained in her brief because she failed to include them in her Rule 1925(b) 

statement. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement 

and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) 

are waived.”).