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.: F ILED: 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 C ourt

. 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 Augus t 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 inves tigated allegations of truancy, neglect, and unsanitary living conditions. 1 On August 17, 2017, the juvenile court awarded Paternal Grandparents sole legal custody an d 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 r etain sole legal custody 2 and primary physical custody, but increased Mother’s partial physical custody to every other weekend. During this time, Father live d with Children and Paternal Grandparents and continued to have periods of partial physical
cust ody 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 Moth er takes only one of the siblings for visit s 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: “ Th e [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 prov i de 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, a fter a custody trial , the trial court issued an O pinion and Final Order of Custody, which granted Paternal Grandparents ’ petition and reduced Mother’s custodial time to one weekend pe r 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

. T he 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. F or 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 proJ

- 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 sha ll 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

. C omprised 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. 2 101. Specifically, i n her Statemen t 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 2 1 1 7(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 A r gument section is markedly underdeveloped and, at times, impossible to decipher

. Significantly, Mother fails to divide the
argum ent 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 lega l 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 meanin gful 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. W e 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 o pinion s 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 Moth er’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) a re waived.”).