J-S50001-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

R.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

J.A.

&

J.B.

APPEAL OF: R.B. & J.B. 1805 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered September 17, 2015

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Orphans’ Court

at No(s): 2011 FC 40380

BEFORE: MUNDY, STABILE, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JULY 20, 2016

R.B. (“Paternal Grandmother”) and J.B. (“Father”) (collectively, 

“Appellants”) appeal, pro se, from the order entered September 17, 2015, 

that directed (1) J.A. (“Mother”) to attend co-parenting with Ann Marie 

Termini, (2) all prior terms of the September 1, 2011 custody order shall 

remain in effect, and (3) the female child of Mother and Father, J.M.B. 

(“Child”) (born in February of 2010), to attend Valley View School District for 

the 2015-2016 school year. 

On March 16, 2011, Paternal Grandmother filed a complaint in custody 

against Mother and Father seeking partial custody of Child. On August 25, 

2011, Mother filed a petition for emergency special relief seeking primary 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S50001-16

- 2 -

physical custody of Child. On that same date, the trial court awarded 

Paternal Grandmother temporary custody of Child until further order. On 

September 1, 2011, the trial court adopted the agreement for custody of the 

parties, including Paternal Grandmother, and entered it as an order of court. 

Under the agreed order, the parties shared legal custody, and Mother and 

Father shared physical custody.

On August 14, 2013, Mother, acting pro se, filed a petition for 

contempt against Father, seeking primary physical custody and sole legal 

custody of Child. On September 3, 2013, Paternal Grandmother and Father 

filed a motion to dismiss. No disposition appears in the record. 

On September 10, 2015, Mother, though counsel, filed a petition for 

contempt and emergency special relief in custody. On September 17, 2015, 

the trial court held a hearing, and entered the order on appeal.

On October 15, 2015, Paternal Grandmother and Father timely filed a 

notice of appeal, and complied with the trial court’s October 19, 2015 order 

directing them to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. 

As a prefatory matter, we observe the following:

[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that 

are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief 

must support the claims with pertinent discussion, 

with references to the record and with citations to 

legal authorities. Citations to authorities must 

articulate the principles for which they are cited. 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).

This Court will not act as counsel and will not 

develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. 
J-S50001-16

- 3 -

Moreover, when defects in a brief impede our ability 

to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may 

dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to 

be waived.

Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331-32 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations 

omitted). 

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.”

O’Neill v. Checker Motors Corp., 567 A.2d 680, 682 (Pa. Super. 1989) 

(citations omitted).

We have carefully reviewed Appellants’ brief, which lacks, inter alia, a 

statement of questions involved, see Pa.R.A.P. 2116, and citations to and 

analyses of applicable Pennsylvania legal authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). 

Other than the Pa. Code, Appellants do not cite or analyze any Pennsylvania 

caselaw whatsoever. Although we liberally construe Appellants’ brief, we are 

barred from acting as their counsel and advancing their arguments.1 See 

Kane, 10 A.3d at 331-32. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

 

1 We also note the relief they asked for is moot, as the 2015-16 school year 

has ended.
J-S50001-16

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/20/2016