J-A11017-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
D.H. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
B.M.
Appellant No. 2015 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order of July 3, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County
Civil Division Docket No: 11-07785
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOT, P.J.E., OLSON and WECHT, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER PER CURIAM: FILED MAY 01, 2015
Appellant, B.M.,1 appeals pro se from the July 3, 2014 order finding
her in contempt of court. We dismiss the appeal.
On July 3, 2014, the trial court found Appellant to be in contempt of
court for failing to attend court-ordered reunification counseling. The trial
court ordered Appellant to pay $560.00 in costs associated with her missed
counseling sessions. She appealed that contempt finding to this Court.
Instead of filing a brief on appeal, Appellant filed a 12-page document that
fails to address the merits of this appeal and, instead, discusses a myriad of
unrelated issues. This document fails to comply with several Pennsylvania
1
As this case involves child custody issues, we are identifying the parties by
their initials so as to protect the identity of the minor child.
J-A11017-15
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., Pa.R.A.P. 2111, 2114, 2116, 2117,
2118, and 2119.
“[W]e decline to become the appellant’s counsel. When . . . briefs are
wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a Court will not
consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski, 904
A.2d 939, 942–943 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal alteration and citation
omitted). Although we could discuss the deficiencies with respect to each
rule of court listed above, we focus on Pennsylvania Rule 2116, which
provides that “No question will be considered unless it is stated in the
statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.” Pa.R.A.P.
2116(a). Appellant’s document lacks a statement of questions involved.
The lack of a statement of questions involved, along with the other
deficiencies, renders Appellant’s document “wholly inadequate to present
specific issues for review.” Gesiorski, 904 A.2d at 942. Therefore,
-2-
J-A11017-15
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101,2 we dismiss the
appeal.3
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/1/2015
2
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2101 provides that:
Briefs . . . shall conform in all material respects with the
requirements of these rules . . . . [I]f 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.
3
Even if we were to consider the merits of this appeal, we would affirm as
Appellant has waived all issues on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Finally,
even if we found that she had preserved any issues for appeal, we conclude
her challenge to the trial court’s contempt order is without merit.
-3-