Court Opinion

ID: 9390811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 17:08:35.630382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:37.189166
License: Public Domain

J-S04018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    RICHARD C. GRATE                           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    VENITA D. MANN                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 2350 EDA 2022

                 Appeal from the Order Entered August 16, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                    Domestic Relations at No(s): 0C1302259

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                                 FILED APRIL 28, 2023

        Appellant, Venita D. Mann (“Mother”), appeals pro se from the order

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which awarded

temporary sole legal custody of D.X.M. (“Child”) to Appellee, Richard C. Grate

(“Father”), and denied Mother’s petitions for contempt.1 We affirm.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 By per curiam order filed January 20, 2023, this Court noted that Mother’s
appeal from the order granting Father temporary sole legal custody was not
a final and appealable order. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (stating final order is
order that disposes of all claims and of all parties); G.B. v. M.M.B., 670 A.2d
714 (Pa.Super. 1996) (stating custody order is final and appealable after trial
court has concluded its hearings on matter and resultant order resolves
pending custody claims between parties). See also J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d
1260, 1263 (Pa.Super. 2017) (en banc) (explaining that order granting
temporary or interim custody is interlocutory). Thus, this Court directed that
the appeal proceed “solely on the denial of Mother’s petitions for contempt.”
(Order, filed 1/20/23) (emphasis omitted).
J-S04018-23

      A prior panel of this Court set forth some of the relevant facts and

procedural history of this case as follows:

         A custody order was entered in January of 2014 …, when
         Child was five years old and attending parochial school in
         Philadelphia, where he lived with Mother and her older son
         and daughter. Father resided in Pennsauken, New Jersey,
         … with his wife, R.B.G. (Stepmother).

         The [2014] order granted the parties shared legal custody,
         Mother primary physical custody, and Father partial physical
         custody on an alternating two-week basis. In week one,
         Father was granted custody from Friday, when he picked
         Child up after school, until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. In week
         two, Father was granted custody from Wednesday, when he
         picked Child up after school, until Saturday at 12:00 p.m.

         [The parties filed] cross-petitions for modification of the
         [2014] custody order … on December 23, 2014 [by Father],
         and Mother on July 30, 2015, wherein they requested
         primary physical custody. Mother also filed a petition for
         contempt against Father. These petitions were not included
         in the certified record. However, the record indicates that
         Father’s request was based on allegations that he will
         provide stability and structure for Child, particularly with
         respect to his education. Mother’s request was based on
         allegations that Child was sexually molested while at
         Father’s home …. Mother also alleged that Child gets sick
         while at Father’s house, including, but not limited to,
         respiratory infections.

         The trial court held hearings on November 30, 2016, May
         17, 2017, October 31, 2017, January 30, 2018, September
         21, 2018, January 24, 2019, and March 19, 2019. During
         the hearing, the trial court consolidated the parties’ petitions
         for modification, contempt [(which both parties had filed)],
         and recusal [(which both parties had filed)]. Father was
         represented by counsel during the proceedings. Mother
         proceeded pro se during all but the first and final hearing
         dates. There were numerous exchanges between the trial
         court and Mother regarding Mother’s proffers of witnesses
         and documents.

                                      -2-
J-S04018-23

           The parties testified on their own behalf, and they presented
           testimony from multiple witnesses. In addition, the trial
           court   admitted      voluminous    documentary      evidence
           introduced by the parties in this case.6 The trial court also
           interviewed Child in camera on November 30, 2016, May
           17, 2017, January 30, 2018, January 24, 2019, and March
           19, 2019.

              6  In addition to the testimony, the trial court
              considered numerous documents that it admitted into
              evidence during the hearing.         Those documents
              included reports from the Philadelphia Children’s
              Alliance (PCA)[,] the Philadelphia County Department
              of Human Services (DHS), Children’s Hospital of
              Philadelphia (CHOP), St. Christopher’s Hospital for
              Children, Division of Child Protection and Permanency
              in the State of New Jersey (DCPP), and the Joseph J.
              Peters Institute (JJPI).

                                      *    *    *

           By final order dated March 19, 2019, and entered on March
           21, 2019, the trial court awarded the parties shared legal
           custody, Father primary physical custody, and Mother
           partial physical custody on alternating weekends from
           Friday at 4:00 p.m. until Sunday at 7:00 p.m. The trial
           court directed that the custody transfers continue to occur
           at the 6th Police District building in Philadelphia, and if either
           party is late or does not appear, it shall be recorded on the
           police log forms, copies of which have been provided to the
           parties. Further, the trial court dismissed Mother’s petitions
           for contempt and denied her motion for recusal.

V.D.M. v. R.C.G., No. 1117 EDA 2019, 2020 WL 398591 (Pa.Super. filed Jan.

23, 2020) (unpublished memorandum), at *1-6 (internal citations and most

internal footnotes omitted).      On January 23, 2020, this Court affirmed the

March 19, 2019 custody order. See id.

      The trial court summarized the subsequent procedural history as

follows:

                                          -3-
J-S04018-23

       Since the Superior Court’s affirmance of the March 2019
       order, the following orders, in relevant part, have been
       entered:

       Order, 11/19/20: Mother’s petition for contempt filed
       3/9/20 is denied.

       Order, 2/11/21: Mother’s petition for contempt filed 1/6/21
       is denied.

       Order 6/3/21: Matter relisted by request of Mother to seek
       alternative counsel.

       Order 10/18/21: Mother’s motion for recusal is denied;
       order of 3/19/19 remains in effect and parties may modify
       it as they agree; parties agree to attend co-parenting
       counseling; parties agree that [Child] will attend
       psychological counseling at the recommendation of his
       treating pediatrician; parties are not to interfere with
       counseling; parties shall participate in counseling only as
       requested by counselor; report from counselor to be
       provided at next listing regarding [Child’s] progress.

       Order 3/7/22:     Matter listed for protracted hearing on
       11/7/22.

       Order 6/24/22: Mother’s motion for recusal filed 2/25/22 is
       denied; Mother’s petition for expedited relief filed 4/4/22 is
       denied; listed for hearing on 8/12/22 is Mother’s petition for
       expedited relief filed 5/12/22, Mother’s petition for
       contempt filed 5/12/22, and Mother’s petition for contempt
       filed 6/8/22.

       Order 7/8/22: Mother’s petition for contempt filed 6/27/22,
       is listed for hearing on 8/12/22.

       The hearing on August 12, 2022, was continued to August
       16, 2022, for completion of testimony. The four petitions
       decided by the court on August 16, 2022 are as follows:

       1. Mother’s petition for expedited relief filed May 12, 2022.
       The petition consists of one hand-written paragraph and an
       addendum typed in small face detailing Mother’s repeated
       allegations, dating from 2013, of [Child’s] having been

                                   -4-
J-S04018-23

       sexually abused at Father’s home and her repeated
       averments that her evidence has been continually
       disregarded by the courts.

       2. Mother’s petition for contempt filed May 12, 2022. The
       petition alleges that Father failed and refused to relinquish
       custody of [Child] to Mother on multiple occasions: January
       through May 7, 2022; February 7, 2020 through March 9,
       2020. Attached was the same document that was the
       addendum to the petition for expedited relief filed May 12,
       2022.

       3. Mother’s petition for contempt filed June 8, 2022. The
       petition alleges that Father failed and refused to relinquish
       custody of [Child] to Mother on April 30, May 13, and May
       27.

       4. Mother’s petition for contempt filed June 27, 2022. The
       petition alleges that Father failed and refused to relinquish
       custody of [Child] to Mother on June 10 and June 24, 2022,
       and that Father refused to schedule summer vacation time.

       In addition to denying all of Mother’s petitions, the August
       16th order awarded Father temporary sole legal custody,
       pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(b) and Pa.R.C.P. 1915.13.
       The court acted on its own motion and granted Father
       temporary sole legal custody as special relief in order to
       enable [Child] to receive medical care and psychological
       counseling as soon as possible. The August 16th order kept
       in place the listing for the protracted custody hearing on
       November 7, 2022, that had been scheduled on March 7,
       2022. The November 7th protracted hearing will address
       Mother’s petition to modify filed March 13, 2022, Mother’s
       petition for contempt filed March 4, 2021, and Mother’s
       amended petition to modify filed on April 8, 2021.

       On September 13, 2022, Mother filed a notice of appeal;
       contrary to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i), she did not also file a
       concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On
       September 15, 2022, the court ordered Mother to file a
       concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On
       October 5, 2022, Mother filed a 36-page “concise”
       statement of errors complained of on appeal. As this
       statement was not concise within the meaning of Rule

                                   -5-
J-S04018-23

         1925(b) and controlling case law, and would have resulted
         in a waiver of all issues on appeal, the Superior Court
         entered an order on October 12, 2022, directing Mother to
         file an amended concise statement of errors complained of
         on appeal by October 24, 2022. Mother filed a two-page
         single-spaced amended statement with the clerk of family
         court on October 21, 2022. …

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 11/1/22, at 1-4) (emphasis in original) (internal

footnote omitted).

      Mother raises the following seven issues on appeal:

         1. Whether the trial court violated [Mother’s] constitutional
         right to due process of law?

         2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a petition
         for recusal based on showing of prejudice, improper
         demeanor, and bias towards [Mother]?

         3. Whether the trial court showed personal bias?

         4. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law by
         permitting [Father’s] witness to testify to hearsay of what a
         professional therapist stated without being certified as an
         expert while … omitting medical records from a
         psychological evaluator that were vital to the case?

         5. Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider all the
         factors under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328 as to what is in the child’s
         best interests?

         6. Whether the trial court erred in omitting several records
         and video regarding occurrence[s] of sexual abuse in
         [Father’s] home?

         7. Whether the trial court erred in failing to address all of
         [Mother’s] contempt petitions filed throughout the pendency
         of the modification hearings?

(Mother’s Brief at xi).

      Preliminarily, appellate briefs and reproduced records must materially

                                      -6-
J-S04018-23

conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the

appellant and are substantial, the appeal…may be quashed or dismissed.” Id.

See also Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (regarding required content of appellate brief).

      Importantly, where an appellant fails to properly raise or develop her

issues on appeal, or where her brief is wholly inadequate to present specific

issues for review, a court will not consider the merits of the claims raised on

appeal. Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding appellant

waived claim where she failed to set forth adequate argument concerning her

claim on appeal; appellant’s argument lacked meaningful substance and

consisted of mere conclusory statements; appellant failed to cogently explain

or even tenuously assert why trial court abused its discretion or made error

of law).   See also Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super 2006)

(explaining appellant’s arguments must adhere to rules of appellate

procedure, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived

on appeal; arguments not appropriately developed include those where party

has failed to cite any authority in support of contention); Estate of Haiko v.

McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating rules of appellate

procedure make clear appellant must support each question raised by

discussion and analysis of pertinent authority; absent reasoned discussion of

law in appellate brief, this Court’s ability to provide appellate review is

hampered, necessitating waiver of issue on appeal).

                                     -7-
J-S04018-23

      Additionally, “[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe

materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit

upon the appellant.     To the contrary, any person choosing to represent

[herself] in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that [her]

lack of expertise and legal training will be [her] undoing.”         Wilkins v.

Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa.

704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007).

      Further, this Court has made clear:

         Any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be
         deemed waived. …Rule 1925 is a crucial component of the
         appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify
         and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.

         [A] Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court
         to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional
         equivalent to no Concise Statement at all. Even if the trial
         court correctly guesses the issues Appellants raise on appeal
         and writes an opinion pursuant to that supposition the
         issues [are] still waived.

         Our law makes it clear that Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not satisfied
         by simply filing any statement. Rather, the statement must
         be “concise” and coherent as to permit the trial court to
         understand the specific issues being raised on appeal.
         Specifically, this Court has held that when appellants raise
         an “outrageous” number of issues in their 1925(b)
         statement, the appellants have deliberately circumvented
         the meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and have thereby
         effectively precluded appellate review of the issues they now
         seek to raise.       We have further noted that such
         “voluminous” statements do not identify the issues that
         appellants actually intend to raise on appeal because the
         briefing limitations contained in Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) makes
         the raising of so many issues impossible. Further, this type
         of extravagant 1925(b) statement makes it all but
         impossible for the trial court to provide a comprehensive

                                      -8-
J-S04018-23

          analysis of the issues.

Tucker v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa.Super. 2007), aff’d, 602 Pa.

147, 977 A.2d 1170 (2009) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

       Instantly, the trial court deemed all of Mother’s claims raised on appeal

waived, reasoning as follows:

          On October 5, 2022, Mother filed a 36-page “concise”
          statement of errors complained of on appeal. As this
          statement was not concise within the meaning of controlling
          case law, and would have resulted in a waiver of all issues
          on appeal, the Superior court entered an order on October
          12, 2022, directing Mother to file an amended concise
          statement of errors complained of on appeal by October 24,
          2022. Mother filed a two-page single-spaced amended
          statement with the clerk of family court on October 21,
          2022. This statement also fails to be sufficiently “concise”
          and “coherent” such that the trial court judge is able to
          identify the issues to be raised on appeal.

(Trial Court Opinion at 9).2

       Because Mother’s amended Rule 1925 statement was insufficient to

permit the trial court to identify the issues Mother sought to raise on appeal,

Mother’s appellate issues are waived on this basis.       See Tucker, supra.

Additionally, many of the issues Mother purports to raise on appeal are not

included in her amended Rule 1925 statement, constituting waiver on that

ground as well. See id. Specifically, Mother’s amended Rule 1925 statement

does not mention bias, the court’s denial of her recusal motion, or the court’s

____________________________________________

2 Notwithstanding its waiver analysis, the trial court went on to address the
issues the court could decipher from Mother’s Rule 1925 statement. (See id.
at 13-21).

                                           -9-
J-S04018-23

failure to consider the relevant custody factors, as she purports to argue in

her second, third, and fifth issues on appeal.

      Further, even if Mother had not waived her issues for failure to properly

preserve them in her Rule 1925 statement, they would still be waived for other

reasons or otherwise afford her no relief. Significantly, Mother’s argument

section in her appellate brief does not correspond to the seven issues she

purports to raise in her statement of questions presented.       See Pa.R.A.P.

2119(a) (mandating that argument section be divided into as many parts as

there are questions to be argued and shall have at head of each part particular

point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities

as are deemed pertinent). More importantly, Mother cites no law in support

of issues two, three, four, six, and seven on appeal, rendering those issues

waived on that ground. See id. See also Lackner, supra; Estate of Haiko,

supra; Butler, supra.

      The only issues for which Mother cites any legal authority pertain to the

first issue raised in her statement of questions presented (regarding the denial

of due process), and the fifth issue raised in her statement of questions

presented (regarding the failure to consider the relevant custody factors).

Regarding the latter issue, however, any challenge to the custody factors is

not appropriate here, where the custody order on appeal was temporary in

                                     - 10 -
J-S04018-23

nature and not a final, appealable order.3 See (Order, 1/20/23); J.M., supra;

G.B., supra.

        Regarding the first issue complaining that the court denied Mother due

process, the court stated:

           At paragraph 1 of her amended concise statement of errors
           complained of on appeal, Mother avers that, the court
           abused its discretion by ruling on evidence that denied her
           a chance “to give her side of the story” and “prove she was
           telling the truth,” and that the court did not allow her to
           “present real evidence” and never allowed her to enter to
           “relevant evidence.” The record demonstrates that this
           issue is without merit as Mother was afforded adequate
           opportunity to present all relevant, admissible evidence in
           support of the four petitions pending before the court.

           Mother’s admissible testimonial and documentary evidence
           was carefully considered by the court. The court’s decision
           was not influenced by the often-heated courtroom
           exchanges between Mother and Father’s counsel. The court
           did not act inappropriately in exercising its authority to
           maintain courtroom decorum and to facilitate the orderly
           presentation of each party’s case. Mother’s displeasure with
           the substance of the court’s rulings does not render them
           reversible error on appeal.
____________________________________________

3   The court explained:

           The evidence presented at the hearings held on August 12,
           2022 and August 16, 2022, established that Mother has
           engaged in numerous actions which have caused a
           disruption in [Child’s] receiving therapy and psychological
           counseling. Providers have declined to provide services to
           [Child] due to Mother’s intrusive actions that were disruptive
           to the therapeutic process. In order to ensure that [Child]
           receive counseling, the court determined that special relief
           was necessary in the award of temporary sole legal custody
           to Father.

(Trial Court Opinion at 10).

                                          - 11 -
J-S04018-23

(Trial Court Opinion at 20-21). Our review of the record confirms that the

court did not deprive Mother of due process during the relevant proceedings.

See In re Adoption of J.N.F., 887 A.2d 775, 781 (Pa.Super. 2005) (stating

due process requires opportunity to be heard and chance to defend oneself in

impartial tribunal having jurisdiction over matter). See also Pa.R.E. 611(a)

(stating court has discretion to exercise reasonable control over mode and

order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence). Here, the trial court

afforded Mother an opportunity to be heard and to present her case, while

also keeping order in the courtroom.4 Therefore, Mother’s issues on appeal

are waived, not properly before this Court for review, or otherwise afford her

no relief.5 Accordingly, we affirm.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

4 To the extent Mother complains the court “hid” a petition for contempt that
Mother filed on May 16, 2022, the trial court noted that “[t]he failure to list
this petition for a hearing along with the three contempt petitions that were
listed was inadvertent and Mother will have an opportunity to litigate its merits
at a future hearing.” (Trial Court Opinion at 4 n.2).

5 As the trial court properly observed: “Many of the exhibits, testimony, and
argumentation presented by Mother are subject to application of the doctrines
of law of the case and of collateral estoppel as they had already been
considered by the trial court prior to entry of the order of March 19, 2019 and
affirmed by the Superior Court at No. 1117 EDA 2019 on January 23, 2020.”
(Id. at 10).

                                          - 12 -
J-S04018-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/28/2023

                          - 13 -