J. S14002/16

 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

H.M.O. :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v. :

:

J.R.O. : No. 1631 MDA 2015

:

APPEAL OF: J.R.O. :

Appeal from the Order Entered, August 19, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County

Civil Division at No. 14-23240

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J. AND STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 11, 2016

J.R.O. (“Father”) appeals, pro se, from the order entered August 19, 

2015, in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, which 

provided, in relevant part, for shared legal custody of the four minor 

children, N.J.O., born in May of 2004, N.R.O., born in September of 2005, 

N.L.O., born in August of 2007, and A.O., born in April of 2009 (collectively, 

“the Children”), primary physical custody to H.M.O. (“Mother”), and partial 

physical custody to Father. We are constrained to dismiss the appeal.

Mother and Father were married in of April of 2004 and separated in 

September of 2011, after Mother obtained a temporary Protection from 

Abuse (“PFA”) order, dated September 26, 2011, against Father. This order 

granted temporary custody of the Children to Mother, pending the outcome 

of the final hearing. (Decision and order, 8/19/15, at 2, ¶ 9.)
J. S14002/16

- 2 -

Subsequently, on October 18, 2011, Mother obtained a final PFA order 

against Father. Pursuant to this order, which had an expiration date of 

October 18, 2014, Father was evicted from the marital residence. Further, 

Mother was conferred primary custody of the Children, with Father to have 

visitation on Tuesday and Thursday from 4:14 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. and 

Saturday from 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Father’s stepfather, mother, and/or 

sister were to accompany Father for the pick-up and/or drop-off, at which 

time Father was to remain in the vehicle. (Id. at 2-3, ¶¶ 10, 11.)

On December 29, 2014, Mother filed a complaint in divorce, which 

included a count seeking sole legal and primary physical custody of the 

Children. As a result, the court entered a scheduling order, on January 5, 

2015, requiring the parties to attend and complete the Children in the Middle 

Program, and scheduling a mediation/orientation session for February 10, 

2015, and a custody conciliation for March 2, 2015.

Thereafter, on January 22, 2015, Mother filed a Petition for special 

relief requesting sole legal and primary physical custody of the Children 

pending the custody conciliation conference. After a hearing, the court 

entered a temporary order, pending the outcome of the custody conciliation 

conference, on February 10, 2015. The temporary order provided for shared 

legal custody of the Children. The temporary order further provided for 

primary physical custody to Mother and partial physical custody to Father on 

alternate weekends from Friday at 5:00 p.m. to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. and 
J. S14002/16

- 3 -

every Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., or at any other times the 

parties agree. 

Following the custody conciliation conference, the custody/support 

master issued a proposed order on March 6, 2015, in line with the court’s 

temporary order. Due to Father’s exceptions, by order dated March 23, 

2015, the matter was scheduled for a pre-trial conference on May 5, 2015.1

After pre-trial conference, the court scheduled and held a custody trial 

on August 6 and 7, 2015.2 On August 19, 2015, the trial court entered a 

decision and order, which addressed each of the 16 custody factors under 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a). The trial court awarded Mother and Father shared 

legal custody of the Children. The court further awarded primary physical 

custody to Mother and partial physical custody to Father on alternate 

weekends from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and every 

Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.3 Father filed a timely notice of 

 

1 Several additional petitions were filed in the time period between Father’s 

exceptions and the custody trial which had no impact on the custody order in 

effect and are therefore not addressed.

2 Of note, Father was represented by counsel. (Entry of appearance, 

1/30/15; decision and order, 8/19/15, at 20.)

3

Pursuant to this order, Father was not to have any overnight custody of the 

Children until they had their own beds.
J. S14002/16

- 4 -

appeal, pro se, on September 18, 2015, along with what Father entitled a 

brief as a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal.4

We note at the outset that the trial court suggests in its opinion 

submitted pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)(1) 

that Father’s appeal should be dismissed for failure to pay for the transcript. 

(Trial court opinion, 10/13/15, at 1-2.) Similarly, Mother avers in her brief 

that Father’s appeal should be dismissed, not only for his failure to pay for 

the transcript, but for his deficient brief as well. (Mother’s brief at 4.) 

Mother additionally notes that Father did not file his brief in a timely manner 

and failed to serve Mother. (Id. at 4-5.) Mother likewise references 

Father’s failure to file a reproduced record. (Id.) We are compelled to 

agree with the trial court and Mother.

We have held that an appeal may be dismissed and/or quashed where 

the deficiencies of the appellant’s brief are such that we are unable to 

conduct a meaningful review. Karn v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., 912 A.2d 329, 

337 (Pa.Super. 2006); Branch Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 

939, 943 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 

1017 (Pa.Super. 1993). Of particular importance, an appellant must include 

a statement of questions involved. Branch Banking & Trust, 904 A.2d at 

942; Maris, 629 A.2d at 1016. As we indicated in Maris:

 

4

Father subsequently filed another document as his brief which additionally 

attached and/or included what was submitted as his concise statement.
J. S14002/16

- 5 -

“This Court possesses discretionary authority to 

quash, dismiss or deny allowance of appeal based 

upon the substantial defects of appellant’s brief. 

Pa.R.A.P. 2101.” Commonwealth v. Ely, 381 

Pa.Super. 510, 513, 554 A.2d 118, 119 (1989). . . . 

“We decline to become appellant’s counsel. When 

issues are not properly raised and developed in 

briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to 

present specific issues for review a Court will not 

consider the merits thereof.” Sanford, supra, 299 

Pa.Super. at 67, 445 A.2d at 150. . . . 

Maris, 629 A.2d at 1017. 

Moreover, we cannot accord special relief to an appellant merely 

because of his pro se status. See id. As stated in Commonwealth v. 

Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa.Super. 1996):

While this court is willing to liberally construe 

materials filed by a pro se litigant, we note that 

appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage 

because she lacks legal training. As our supreme 

court has explained, any layperson choosing to 

represent [herself] in a legal proceeding must, to 

some reasonable extent, assume the risk that [her] 

lack of expertise and legal training will prove [her] 

undoing. 

Id. at 1013, quoting O'Neill v. Checker Motors Corp., 567 A.2d 680, 682 

(Pa.Super. 1989).

Further, with regard to transcripts, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 1911 states, in part:

(a) General rule. The appellant shall request any 

transcript required under this chapter in the 

manner and make any necessary payment or 

deposit therefor in the amount and within the 

time prescribed by Rules 5000.1 et seq. of the 
J. S14002/16

- 6 -

Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration 

(court reporters).

. . . .

(d) Effect of failure to comply. If the appellant 

fails to take the action required by these rules 

and the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial 

Administration for the preparation of the 

transcript, the appellate court may take such 

action as it deems appropriate, which may 

include dismissal of the appeal.

Pa.R.A.P. 1991(a), (d). See Gorniak v. Gorniak, 504 A.2d 1262 

(Pa.Super. 1986) (dismissing appeal where appellant did not comply with 

Rules of Appellate Procedure and provide transcript).

As we stated in Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa.Super. 

2006) (en banc):

With regard to missing transcripts, the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure require an appellant to order 

and pay for any transcript necessary to permit 

resolution of the issues raised on appeal. 

Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a). . . . It is not proper for either the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court or the Superior Court to 

order transcripts nor is it the responsibility of the 

appellate courts to obtain the necessary transcripts. 

Id.

Id. at 7.

In the instant matter, without the necessity of reviewing Father’s brief, 

we are nonetheless constrained to agree with the trial court and Mother 

regarding Father’s failure to pay for the transcript. Although Father 

submitted a request for the transcript with his notice of appeal, by his own 

admission in his brief, he did not pay the monies mandated for transcription. 
J. S14002/16

- 7 -

(Father’s brief at 1.) Further, a review of the record reveals that while 

Father filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, this request was 

denied by this court in order for Father to first make this request of the trial 

court. (Order, 10/22/15.) We are unaware that Father made this request of 

the trial court. Without the notes of testimony, we are without a complete 

record and therefore hampered from conducting any meaningful review.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Father’s 

appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/11/2016