J-S19001-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: M.J.R., JR., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: C.R-M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1682 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered November 3, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Orphans' Court at No(s): 

88453

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

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: JULY 12, 2024

Appellant, C.R-M. (“Mother”) appeals the November 3, 2023 order 

entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas that involuntarily 

terminated her parental rights to eight-year-old M.J.R. (“Child”). Upon 

review, we dismiss this appeal due to the substantial defects in Mother’s brief 

to this Court. 

A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary 

to our disposition. Briefly, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent in 2018 

and again on July 27, 2020, for lack of proper parental care stemming from

domestic violence issues, lack of parenting skills, lack of parental supervision, 

inappropriate physical discipline, and failure to cooperate with Berks County 

Children and Youth Services (“the Agency”). The court ordered Mother to 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S19001-24

- 2 -

comply with Agency supervision within the home. On October 1, 2021, the 

Agency found Mother to be a perpetrator of abuse against Child’s older 

brother. On October 28, 2021, the court granted the Agency’s request to 

place Child in foster care due to concerns regarding inadequate housing, 

truancy, Mother’s ongoing lack of cooperation with the Agency, and Mother’s 

founded report of abuse against Child’s sibling.

On November 3, 2022, the Agency filed a motion to suspend Mother’s 

visitation with Child after the Agency received reports that Mother told Child 

that 1) she would bring a knife and kill him during the next visit, and 2) she 

would kill him in front of his therapist. Additionally, the Agency averred that 

Child was extremely anxious during visits and expressed a desire to stop 

visitation with Mother. On December 6, 2022, after a hearing, the trial court 

suspended visitation between Mother and Child. Over the course of numerous 

permanency review hearings, the court made findings that Mother made 

minimal or no progress in alleviating the circumstances which necessitated 

Child’s placement and was minimally to moderately compliant with the 

permanency plan. 

On January 20, 2023, the Agency filed a petition to terminate Mother’s 

parental rights and the court subsequently appointed legal counsel for Child.

On November 3, 2023, after a three-day trial where the trial court heard 

testimony from fourteen witnesses, the court found that the Agency provided 

clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant 
J-S19001-24

- 3 -

to Sections 2511 (a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). Mother filed a timely pro se 

notice of appeal.1 

As stated above, Mother’s brief fails to comply with the briefing 

requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2135 and we are, therefore, unable 

to conduct meaningful appellate review.

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 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “[A]lthough 

this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro 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 

____________________________________________

1 On January 8, 2024, this Court directed the trial court to clarify the status 

of Mother’s representation and whether Appellant’s waiver of counsel was 

knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier,

713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). On January 22, 2024, the trial court confirmed that 

it held a Grazier hearing on December 21, 2023, and subsequently found that 

Mother knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to be

represented by counsel on appeal.
J-S19001-24

- 4 -

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

procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101-2119. “The Rules of Appellate Procedure [] state 

unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by 

discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz,

232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). 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 multiple 

attempts at persuasive argument in violation of Rule 2117(b). See Mother’s 

Br. at 14-16. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)-(b) (setting forth 

requirements for the statement of the case section). Essentially, Mother uses 

the statement of the case to assert personal grievances rather than provide a 

procedural and factual history. 

Notably, Mother fails to provide a statement of the questions involved

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4). The omission of a statement of questions 
J-S19001-24

- 5 -

involved is “particularly grievous since the statement of questions involved

defines the specific issues this Court is asked to review.” Commonwealth v.

Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Pa. Super. 1993).

In addition, Mother’s Argument section is markedly underdeveloped 

and, at times, impossible to decipher. Although Mother randomly cites to 

boilerplate legal authority in bullet points throughout the brief, she fails to 

apply the law to the facts of this case in a meaningful and coherent manner

with citation to the record, as required by our Rules of Appellate Procedure

and case law. See Mother’s Br. at 18-26. In fact, 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.

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 wellwritten and comprehensive December 29, 2023 opinion and discern no abuse 

of discretion. 

Appeal dismissed. 
J-S19001-24

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 07/12/2024