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 . T he first appeal w as filed by E.K. and M.K. ( P aternal G randparents) , 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 involve s D.K. , Father’s

s ister, who i s 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) hearing s throughout 2021. The various petitions filed in these matters were all addressed by the trial court in a consolidated manner i n 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, A ppellant s’ briefs in both cases

are n early identical and the pages are not numbered

. Most notably, the
section s of A ppellants’ briefs , entitled “Statement of Questions Involved , ” consist of a single paragraph covering pages 8 through 11 of each of the brief s 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 contain s no citations to legal authority , n either statues no r 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 c ourt 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 fo rth in detail the required content of appellate briefs). When a party’s brief fails to conform to the requirements of the R ules of A ppellate P rocedure , and the defects are substantial, this Court may, in its discretion, quash or dismiss the appeal pursuan t to Pa.R.A.P. 210 1

. 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 ar e 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 C ourt is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pr o 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 wi th the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania R ules 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 t o the violations listed above, i.e. , in the “Statement of Questions Involve d ” 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 shal l be a concise, but accurate, summary of the arguments presented in support of the issues in the statement of questions involved ” ). Moreover, “[t]he R ules of Appellate Procedure stateJ

- 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. S uper. 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 A ppellate 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