J-A17013-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J.F. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
J.C.M.
Appellant No. 215 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered December 13, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Domestic Relations at No(s): C-48-CV-2013-2181
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 04, 2014
pro se from the order entered in
the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, which found Mother in civil
and indirect criminal contempt of court.1 We affirm.
In its opinions, 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.
Mother raises four issues for our review:
____________________________________________
1
pri
physical custody of Child, but changed the days on which Father exercised
partial physical custody.
J-A17013-14
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN
DENYING [MOTHER] A FAIR TRIAL, OF REASONABLE AND
LEGAL DECISIONS, OF THAT INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO: A) BIAS/PREJUDICE BEHAVIORS; B)
EXTREME/HARSH SANCTIONS/VERDICT; C) DENYING
E) INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL; F) PERSONAL OPINIONS OF
MATTER[?]
WAS THERE A PATTERN OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
ANY WAY THROUGHOUT EACH PAST HISTORY OF COURT
APPEARANCE AND/OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTOR,
WHICH COULD GREATLY ALTER THE FINDINGS AND
VERDICT OF COURT TRIAL/ORDER OF DECEMBER 13,
2013?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WITH INFRINGING ON
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: A) AMENDMENT I; B)
AMENDMENT V[?]
DID THE TRIAL COURT PLACE A CUSTODY ORDER
APPROPRIATELY TO SPECIFIC MINOR CHILD DATED
DECEMBER 13, 2013 IN ACCORDANCE TO THE BEST
INTEREST STANDARD?
-5) (emphasis in original).
As a prefatory matter we note that, although 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. First Union Mortg. Corp. v.
Frempong, 744 A.2d 327 (Pa.Super. 1999) (stating pro se status does not
entitle party to any particular advantage because of her lack of legal
training). Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural
rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Court. Jones v. Rudenstein,
585 A.2d 520 (Pa.Super. 1991), appeal denied, 529 Pa. 634, 600 A.2d 954
(1991). Appellate briefs must conform in all material respects to the briefing
-2-
J-A17013-14
requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Rosselli v. Rosselli, 750 A.2d 355 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 564
Pa. 696, 764 A.2d 50 (2000) (citing 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 statement of the case section of an appellate brief, Rule
2117 provides, in pertinent part:
Rule 2117. Statement of the Case
(a) General rule. The statement of the case shall
contain, in the following order:
(1) A statement of the form of action, followed by a
brief procedural history of the case.
(2) A brief statement of any prior determination of
any court or other government unit in the same case or
estate, and a reference to the place where it is
reported, if any.
(3) The names of the judges or other officials
whose determinations are to be reviewed.
(4) A closely condensed chronological statement, in
narrative form, of all the facts which are necessary to
be known in order to determine the points in
controversy, with an appropriate reference in each
instance to the place in the record where the evidence
substantiating the fact relied on may be found. See
Rule 2132 (references in briefs to the record).
(5) A brief statement of the order or other
determination under review.
(b) All argument to be excluded. The statement
of the case shall not contain any argument. It is the
responsibility of appellant to present in the statement of
the case a balanced presentation of the history of the
proceedings and the respective contentions of the parties.
-3-
J-A17013-14
Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a), (b). See also Canal Side Care Manor, LLC v.
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 30 A.3d 568 (Pa.Cmwlth.
2011) (stating appellate brief failed to conform to Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure where, inter alia
relevant facts critical to decide case); Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86
(Pa.Super. 2005) (explaining wife failed to comply with Rule 2117(b) where
her statement of case was argumentative in tone and did not contain
balanced presentation of history of proceedings and respective contentions
of parties).
Additionally, as to the argument section of an appellate brief, Rule
2119(a) provides:
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 point
treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). 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
meaningful substance and consisted of mere conclusory statements;
-4-
J-A17013-14
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,
ust
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
ability to provide appellate review is hampered, necessitating waiver of issue
on appeal).
Instantly, Mother is pro se
decide the issues on appeal, and instead provides unsupported conclusions
-
sided statement of the case fails to provide a balanced presentation of the
history of proceedings and respective contentions of parties, in direct
contravention with the requirements of Rule 2117. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117;
Canal Side Care Manor, supra; Jones, supra. Further, the argument
question to be argued. See
-5-
J-A17013-14
brief fails to present any cogent arguments, and does not contain
meaningful discussion of, or citation to, relevant legal authority. See id.
ppeal precludes
meaningful review and constitutes waiver of her issues for appellate
purposes. See Lackner, supra; Estate of Haiko; Butler, supra. See
also In re C.P.
support claim on appeal with relevant legal authority or discussion precluded
appellate review of issue).
Moreover, after a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the
parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable
Stephen G. Baratta, we conclude that even if Mother had properly preserved
her issues for our review, her claims would nevertheless merit no relief. The
trial court opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the
questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed January 22, 2014, at 1-
3; Trial Court Opinion, filed December 13, 2013, at 12-17) (finding: Mother
custody order to allow Father overnight visits with Child, Mother refused to
allow Father to exercise his periods of custody; nothing in record suggests
Father is incapable resource for Child; Father is intelligent, respectful, and
well- was credible; Father completed
parenting class; Mother failed to present any specific incidents indicating
-6-
J-A17013-14
c
not present medical testimony to support her contention that she must
to testify, who made clear there was no directive or medical need to deny
Father overnight visits with Child so Mother could breastfeed Child; court
four hours is legitimate excuse to deny Father reasonable partial physical
were unfounded; Mother admitted she was unwilling to comply with custody
order because she deemed Father unworthy of independent physical custody
of Child outside of her presence; Mother lacked reasonable justification for
ul and intentional; Father is
entitled to recovery of make-
2
Accordingly, we
____________________________________________
2
At page 15 of its December 13, 2013 opinion, the court inadvertently cited
the statute governing factors to consider when awarding custody as 53
Pa.C.S.A. § 5328; the correct citation is 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328.
-7-
J-A17013-14
co
properly preserved her claims, we would have affirmed on the basis of the
3
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/4/2014
____________________________________________
3
On July 1, 2014, Mother filed a pro se letter with this Court, asking for
review of a transcript in this matter dated November 8, 2013, which Mother
alleged was missing from the certified record; Mother attached a copy of the
transcript to the letter. Our review of the record confirms the relevant
transcript was made part of the certified record as a supplemental record.
-8-