Court Opinion

ID: 9400871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:11:07.703439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.586483
License: Public Domain

J-A14029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    SHANNAN PATRICIA MCGINNISS                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    BRIAN HIRSCH                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 3194 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered December 1, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Family Division at No(s):
                                2016DR01652

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.:                               FILED JUNE 9, 2023

       Brian Hirsch (“Father”) appeals pro se from the December 1, 2022

order1 that granted his petition to modify support and temporarily reduced his

monthly child support obligation. Father’s pro se brief contains substantial

defects that preclude meaningful appellate review and, therefore, we dismiss

this appeal.

       A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our

disposition. Briefly, Father and Mother were never married and are parents

to seven-year-old G.M. (“Child”). Since October 2020, Mother has had sole

legal and physical custody of Child and Father has had supervised visitation

on weekends. On October 12, 2021, the trial court ordered Father to pay

$352 per month in child support to Mother. On August 17, 2022, Father filed
____________________________________________

1The order is dated November 28, 2022, but the trial court did not docket the
order until December 1, 2022.
J-A14029-23

a petition to modify his support obligation. On December 1, 2022, after a

conference and a hearing, the trial court temporarily reduced Father’s support

obligation to $200 per month from September 2022 to January 2023 to allow

him to recover from a recent injury.2

       Father timely appealed. Both Father and the trial court complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

       Although Father has included 10 issues in his statement of questions

presented, we are unable to review them due to the substantial defects in his

brief. We, thus, are constrained to dismiss this appeal.

       Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or

dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth v.

Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. It is axiomatic

that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be developed with citation

to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P 2119(a)-(c).      “The Rules of

Appellate Procedure at Pa.R.A.P. 2119 state unequivocally that each question

an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent

authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020)

(citation omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing briefing requirements for

____________________________________________

2 During the same period, the court ordered any arrears to be calculated at
10% rather than 20%. “The net mathematical effect of this Order is that
those frequent periods of time in which [Father] was in arrears on the Order,
his obligation would be reduced by nearly 50% from $422 per month to $220
per month.” Trial Ct. Op., dated 2/10/23, at 2.

                                           -2-
J-A14029-23

appellate briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for

appellate briefs).   “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.” Branch Banking and

Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation

omitted).

      “[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a

pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an

appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251–52 (Pa. Super.

2003). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal

proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise

and legal training will be his undoing.” Adams, 882 A.2d at 498. As this Court

has made clear, we “will not act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy,

918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007). “We shall not develop an argument for

an appellant, nor shall we scour the record to find evidence to support an

argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).

      In his “Order(s) in Question” section, Father purports to appeal from

five separate orders entered between 2020 to 2023, as well as “all previous

court decisions of contempt of custody petitions from 2016-2022[.]” Father’s

Br. at 3. In his one-page “Statement of the Case” section, Father fails to

include any citations to the record, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117(4). Finally,

while Father has included a “Summary of Argument” section, he has failed to

include an actual argument section as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119.

                                      -3-
J-A14029-23

      Most fatal to our review, Father has failed to address each of the ten

issues he raises as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Rule 2119 provides, inter

alia, that each issue raised should be addressed in the argument section under

its own heading with discussion of relevant law as it pertains to the issues

raised in the appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Father failed to do this and, instead,

his “Summary of Argument” section consists of a myriad of grievances from

2016 to present. Father’s Br. at 8-14. For instance, Father complains about

prior custody orders, prior judges assigned to his case, the police department’s

enforcement of prior custody orders, and policies at Child’s school. Further,

Father devotes numerous pages to a comprehensive list of holidays and

birthdays when he did not get to see Child. Notably, Father allocates only

three sentences to discuss the support order that he purports to appeal. Id.

at 14. In addition, throughout his “Summary of Argument” section, Father

fails to cite or discuss any relevant legal authority. Id. at 8-14.

      In sum, Father’s violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure preclude

this Court’s meaningful review. We decline to scour the record and may not

develop arguments on Father’s behalf. Accordingly, we are constrained to

dismiss this appeal.

      Appeal dismissed.

                                      -4-
J-A14029-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/9/2023

                          -5-