WHEN THE EVIDENCE AND THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT [FATHER] FILED AND SERVED ALL OF THE PLEADINGS IN GOOD FAITH, AND WHERE [FATHER]'S ACTIONS IN FILING THE PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT OR IN SERVING THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS WERE NOT DILATORY, OBDURATE OR VEXATIOUS IN NATURE?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AND/OR ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING [MOTHER]'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1023.2 WHEN IT WAS VERY WELL AWARE THAT [MOTHER] DID NOT GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OR DEMAND TO [FATHER], FORMAL OR INFORMAL, TO APPROPRIATELY CORRECT OR WITHDRAW THE CHALLENGED PAPER OR REPORTED DEFICIENT, NOR DID [MOTHER] WAIT THE REQUIRED TWENTY-EIGHT (28) DAY GRACE PERIOD AFTER SERVICE OF DEMAND, HAD SHE GIVEN THE REQUIRED NOTICE [PRIOR TO] FILING THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AS CALLED FOR IN PA.R.C.P. 1023.1 AND 1023.2; AND WHEN ALL [MOTHER] HAD TO DO WAS FILE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 2017 SUPPORT CONFERENCE WHILE GIVING [FATHER] THE REQUIRED 28[-]DAY NOTICE DEMAND PRIOR TO FILING THE WITHIN MOTION FOR SANCTIONS?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AND/OR ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN SUSTAINING [MOTHER]'S OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS AND/OR IN DENYING [FATHER]'S PETITION FOR SPECIAL ORDER FOR DISCOVERY IN A SUPPORT ACTION PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1910.9(A), WHEN THESE PLEADINGS WERE ____________________________________________
1 Father styled his concise statement of errors as a Rule 1925(a)(2) statement; however, this appeal is not a children's fast track case.
J-A28003-17
SERVED IN GOOD FAITH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE RULES, SO AS TO SECURE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FROM TWO (2) GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN TO FURTHER SUPPORT [FATHER]'S CONTENTION THAT THERE IS A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THAT [MOTHER] HAS NO MEDICAL RESTRICTIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT, WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN [MOTHER] BEING IMPUTED INCOME, AND THUS A CHANGE IN INCOME OF THE PARTIES, AS SUPPORTED BY RULE 1023.1(C)(3)?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AND/OR ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE SUPPORT PROCEEDING THAT WAS CONTINUED ON FEBRUARY 1, 2017 UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, WHEN THIS WAS [FATHER]'S SECOND PETITION FOR MODIFICATION FILED IN THE SIX (6) YEAR HISTORY OF THIS CASE, AND WHERE [MOTHER] HAS NEVER PROVIDED [FATHER] WITH A PHYSICIAN'S AFFIDAVIT OR VERIFICATION FORM AS TO HER ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS, WHICH SHE FALSELY CLAIMED SHE HAD IN HER POSSESSION AND WHICH SHE HAD FILED WITH THE COURT IN PRIOR SUPPORT PROCEEDINGS THAT RESULTED IN DE NOVO HEARINGS BEFORE THE COURT?
(Father's Brief at 3-6).
Preliminarily, we observe "[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are
waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Further, our standard of review of issues concerning sanctions and discovery
orders is one of abuse of discretion by the trial court. ACE American Ins.
Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyds and Cos., 939 A.2d 935 (Pa.Super. 2007),
affirmed, 601 Pa. 95, 971 A.2d 1121 (2009); Crum v.
Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC, 907 A.2d 578
(Pa.Super. 2006). "An abuse of discretion is not lightly found, as it requires
clear