Court Opinion

ID: 9838184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 16:12:10.464692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:04.510215
License: Public Domain

J-S24001-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  D.M.                                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  A.H.                                         :   No. 288 MDA 2023

              Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County Civil Division at No(s):
                           CP-44-CV-1174-2019

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                        FILED SEPTEMBER 5, 2023

       Appellant, D.M. (“Father”), appeals pro se from the trial court’s January

25, 2023 order, which, inter alia, denied his petitions for civil contempt and

modification of a custody order. Due to briefing deficiencies, we quash his

appeal.

       We need not delve into the procedural and factual background of this

case, as it is not pertinent to our disposition. Instead, we only note that the

trial court entered an order on January 25, 2023, which denied Father’s

petitions for civil contempt and modification of custody.      On February 21,

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S24001-23

2023, Father filed a timely, pro se appeal.1      Presently, Father raises eight

questions for our review:
       1. Were the children’s wants, needs, and best interests put as top
       priority by the trial court?

       2. Did the trial court ignore the evidence presented by [Father]
       showing the children’s educational needs (grades and attendance)
       suffering since being put in appellee’s custody?

       3. Did the trial court ignore the evidence presented by [Father]
       showing a better living area, children’s hospital, schools, and
       support system for the children?

       4. Did the trial court ignore … one of the children in question …
       when she informed the court that the children were being mentally
       and emotionally abused at appellee’s residence?

       5. Did the trial court choose to continue to allow children to reside
       with appellee, while knowing that there is drug activity in the
       home?

       6. Did appellee willfully break law 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 5337 twice in
       August of 2022?

____________________________________________

1 Father did not concurrently file a concise statement of errors complained of

on appeal with his notice of appeal in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) (“In a children’s fast track appeal … [t]he concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal shall be filed and served with the
notice of appeal.”). On February 23, 2023, the trial court issued an order
directing Father to file a concise statement within 21 days of the date of its
order.    See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Order, 2/23/23, at 1 (single page;
unpaginated). It instructed that “[t]his Statement shall be filed on record.
This Statement shall be served on the Judge pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1).
Any issue not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served
pursuant to [Rule] 1925(b) shall be deemed waived.” Id.

      Father did not file his concise statement within 21 days of the trial
court’s order, i.e., on or before March 16, 2023. Instead, he filed his concise
statement on March 17, 2023. The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion
on March 23, 2023. While Father’s non-compliance is troubling, due to the
disposition we reach infra, we need not address whether Father waived his
issues as a result of his untimely filing.

                                           -2-
J-S24001-23

      7. Did appellee suffer any consequences by the trial court for these
      actions?

      8. Did the trial court ignore evidence presented by [Father]
      showing appellee’s past and continued acts of parental alienation?

Father’s Brief at 2-3 (emphasis omitted).

      Upon review, Father’s appellate brief has substantial defects and does

not permit meaningful appellate review.      Problematically, though he raises

eight questions for us to review, the argument section of his brief is barely a

page long. See Appellant’s Brief at 9-10. His argument contains no citations

to legal authority or the record. Instead, Appellant lists — in a conclusory

fashion and with no elaboration — ways in which the trial court purportedly

erred. Id.

      Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 states:
      Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
      respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the
      circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they
      may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or
      reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal
      or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Further, Rule 2119(a) mandates that:
      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
      point treated therein, followed by such discussion and
      citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (emphasis added).

      This Court has previously explained:
      The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each
      question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and
      analysis of pertinent authority. Furthermore, when issues are not
      properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly

                                      -3-
J-S24001-23

      inadequate to present specific issues for review, a Court will not
      consider the merits thereof.

      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 he lacks legal training. … [A]ny
      layperson choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding
      must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that his lack of
      expertise and legal training will prove his undoing. We simply
      decline to become [the a]ppellant’s counsel.

Elliott-Greenleaf, P.C. v. Rothstein, 255 A.3d 539, 542 (Pa. Super. 2021)

(cleaned up).   See also C.H.L. v. W.D.L., 214 A.3d 1271, 1277-78 (Pa.

Super. 2019) (“We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall

we scour the record to find evidence to support an argument…. When an

allegation is unsupported by any citation to the record, such that this Court is

prevented from assessing the issue and determining whether error exists, the

allegation is waived for purposes of appeal.”) (cleaned up).

      We decline to become Father’s counsel. His failure to cite to any legal

authority or record evidence to support his claims impede meaningful

appellate review.   Due to these serious briefing deficiencies, we quash his

appeal.

      Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 09/05/2023

                                      -4-