J-S83032-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
M.M.F. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : V.A.F. : : Appellant : No. 945 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order February 14, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Domestic Relations at No(s): DR-36710, PACSES Case #922111536
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 18, 2018
Appellant, V.A.F. ("Father"), appeals from the order entered in the
Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, which finalized the November
10, 2016 order that dismissed Father's petition to modify the existing
support order. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Father raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED [AN] ERROR OF LAW AND/OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO ADJUST THE PRESENT SUPPORT ORDER AS TO THE AMOUNT [FATHER] IS TO PAY IN MONTHLY CHILD SUPPORT RETROACTIVELY TO MAY 2015 TO REFLECT THE FACT THAT APPELLEE [("MOTHER")] HAS BEEN RECEIVING AN ADDITIONAL $1,201.47 PER MONTH AS: (A) HER PRO J-S83032-17
RATA PORTION OF FATHER'S PENSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $701.47; PLUS (B) A PENALTY PROVISION FROM [FATHER'S] PENSION OF $500 PER MONTH, AND MOTHER IS PERMITTED TO BE CHARGED RETROACTIVELY DUE TO THE FACT THAT MOTHER FAILED TO REPORT THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME AS REQUIRED BY 23 PA.C.S. § 4353(A)?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT [COMMITTED] AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ESSENTIALLY CHARGING FATHER WITH THREE (3) FULL-TIME INCOMES: (A) FOR A MONTHLY PRO RATA PORTION OF HIS FORMER LUMP SUM DISTRIBUTION FROM A FORMER WORKERS COMPENSATION SETTLEMENT; (B) FOR A MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION FROM HIS PENSION OF $201.24; AND (C) FOR HIS FULL-TIME JOB WITH AMAZON.COM, ANY OF WHICH SITUTATIONS ALONE WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED A "FULL-TIME" JOB AND THUS THIS "TAKING" REPRESENTS A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY NOT BIFURCATING THE PRESENT CHILD SUPPORT ORDER GIVEN THAT [FATHER] DID NOT...START HIS POSITION WITH AMAZON.COM FOR OVER A MONTH, I.E.[,] UNTIL OCTOBER 21, 2016, AFTER HE HAD FILED HIS PETITION FOR MODIFICATION ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2016, YET THE PRESENT ORDER DOES NOT REFLECT HIS REDUCED INCOME FOR THE PRIOR FIVE (5) WEEKS?
(Father's Brief at 4).
Preliminarily, we observe that appellate briefs must conform in all
material respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. See also Pa.R.A.P. 2114-
2119 (addressing specific requirements of each subsection of brief on
appeal). Regarding the argument section of an appellate brief, Rule 2119(a)
provides:
J-S83032-17
Rule 2119. Argument
(a) General rule. - The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part - in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed - the particular