J-A14006-22

J-A14007-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

E.K. AND M.K. 

Appellants

v.

LANCASTER COUNTY CHILDREN AND 

YOUTH SERVICES

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 70 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered December 13, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at 

No(s): CI-19-02678

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: O.J.K., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: D.K.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 71 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered December 13, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 2019-01158

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

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

Both of these cases involve appeals from the trial court’s order, dated 

December 13, 2021. The first appeal was filed by E.K. and M.K. (Paternal 

Grandparents), who are seeking custody of one of their grandchildren, O.J.K. 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A14006-22

J-A14007-22

- 2 -

(Child), born in January of 2014.1 The second case involves D.K., Father’s 

sister, who is seeking to adopt Child. The trial court concluded that both 

petitions lacked merit. Rather, the trial court granted the adoption petition 

filed by S.M., a maternal aunt of Child, after holding ten (10) hearings

throughout 2021. The various petitions filed in these matters were all 

addressed by the trial court in a consolidated manner in a single order and in 

one extensive opinion. Therefore, we have consolidated the two cases. 

Initially, we note that both Paternal Grandparents and D.K. (Appellants) 

are appealing to this Court pro se. Moreover, Appellants’ briefs in both cases 

are nearly identical and the pages are not numbered. Most notably, the 

sections of Appellants’ briefs, entitled “Statement of Questions Involved,” 

consist of a single paragraph covering pages 8 through 11 of each of the briefs

in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2116. There are no numbered issues listed. 

Furthermore, the “Argument” section of each brief extends only from pages 

21 to 22 and contains no citations to legal authority, neither statues nor 

caselaw, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119. 

As just noted, our review reveals that Appellants have failed to comply 

with a number of the briefing requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119. 

“[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. This court may quash or dismiss 

an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the 

____________________________________________

1 The parental rights of Child’s parents, A.M. (Mother) and D.K. (Father), were 

involuntarily terminated in 2019. They are not parties to these appeals. 
J-A14006-22

J-A14007-22

- 3 -

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 

A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2119 (setting 

forth in detail the required content of appellate briefs). When a party’s brief 

fails to conform to the requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and 

the defects are substantial, this Court may, in its discretion, quash or dismiss 

the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Rule 2101 provides that “[b]riefs ... 

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 ... of the appellant and 

are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.” 

We further recognize that “[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). Therefore, “a pro se litigant must comply with the 

procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Id. at 252.

Having reviewed the nearly identical briefs filed by Appellants in both 

cases, we recognize substantial violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

In addition to the violations listed above, i.e., in the “Statement of Questions 

Involved” and the “Argument” sections, the “Summary of Argument,” which 

is to be concise, extends from page 14 to page 19. See Pa.R.A.P. 2118 

(stating that “[t]he summary of argument shall be a concise, but accurate, 

summary of the arguments presented in support of the issues in the statement 

of questions involved”). Moreover, “[t]he Rules of Appellate Procedure state 
J-A14006-22

J-A14007-22

- 4 -

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

discussion and analysis of pertinent authority. Failure to do so constitutes 

waiver of the claim.” Giant Food Stores, LLC v. THF Silver spring Dev., 

L.P., 959 A.2d 438, 444 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a) and (b). 

Even if this Court would attempt a liberal construction of Appellants’ 

briefs, it would not remedy the substantial inadequacies and failures to comply 

with the Rules of Appellate Procedure contained in the briefs. Accordingly, we 

are compelled to quash the two appeals due to the briefing defects, which 

impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. 

Appeals quashed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 09/14/2022