J-S07010-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
B.L.F. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
D.J.F. : No. 2401 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered July 15, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations
at No(s): Docket No. 04-07331, PACSES #: 907117257
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., KING, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2020
Appellant B.L.F. (Father) appeals pro se from the order entered on July
15, 2019, which granted the petition for reconsideration filed by D.J.F.
(Mother), and modified an order resolving the parties’ petitions to modify child
support. For the reasons stated here, we conclude Father has waived all of
his issues, and we dismiss this appeal.
We summarize the relevant procedural history of this appeal as follows.
Father had primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child from August
1, 2018, until April 25, 2019, in Colorado. After that date, Mother obtained
sole physical and legal custody in Pennsylvania.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S07010-20
While the child was in Father’s physical custody, Father filed for child
support from Mother. On October 23, 2018, the trial court entered an interim
order directing Mother to pay child support to Father. Father disagreed with
that order, and the trial court scheduled a hearing for June 26, 2019.
Meanwhile, on April 29, 2019, Mother filed a petition to modify support as she
obtained sole physical and legal custody. The trial court scheduled a hearing
for June 26, 2019, to address Father’s objection and Mother’s petition to
modify.
The Honorable Holly J. Ford convened the June 26, 2019 hearing, Mother
was present and Father participated by telephone. N.T., 6/26/19, at 5-6.
During the hearing, Father alleged that fraud had been committed. Id. at 7.
The trial court stated that Father’s previous allegations of fraud had been
unsuccessfully litigated in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, this Court, and in the Court of Common Pleas, and
that the trial court would not entertain further allegations of fraud. Id. Father
later accused Judge Ford of perjury. Id. at 18-22. That same day, the trial
court entered an order setting Father’s monthly child support obligation at
$388.50 per month and his child support arrearages at $14,609.43. Mother’s
child support arrearages were set at $0.00. The order also released any holds
on IRS, unemployment, or Pennsylvania child support intercepts to Mother.
Mother filed a motion for reconsideration on June 28, 2019, claiming
newly-discovered evidence that Father received a federal income tax refund
-2-
J-S07010-20
in Colorado, because the Philadelphia trial court’s order regarding the release
of child support intercepts to Mother only applied in Pennsylvania. Mother’s
Mot. for Recons., 6/28/19. The trial court entered an order on July 15, 2019,
granting the motion without a hearing and amending the June 26, 2019 order
to include releasing holds on child support intercepts in Colorado and any other
state to Mother.
Father filed a notice of appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on
August 14, 2019.1 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) & (b). In his Rule 1925(b)
statement, Father presented eighteen numbered paragraphs, in which he
alleged, among other things, that Judge Ford, Administrative Judge Margaret
T. Murphy, and unnamed court employees committed various criminal
violations including fraud upon the court, perjury, and criminal conspiracy,
and deprivation of his constitutional right to due process. See Father’s
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 8/5/19, at 2-5. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the
trial court concluded that Father’s issues were too incoherent and lacking in
sufficient detail to identify any issues that Father has raised on appeal. Trial
Ct. Op., 10/17/19, at 10-11.
On appeal, Father argues that Judge Ford, Administrative Judge Murphy,
Mother, and others conspired to engage in criminal conduct, abused the legal
____________________________________________
1 Father sent his notice of appeal to, among others, the Prothonotary of the
Superior Court, which received the notice of appeal on August 14, 2019.
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(4), we treat Father’s notice of appeal as timely
filed on August 14, 2019.
-3-
J-S07010-20
process, and deprived him of due process. Initially, we must consider whether
Father waived his claims by failing to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119.
Appellate briefs must conform to the briefing requirements set forth in
the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101; see also
Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (setting forth the requirements for the argument section of an
appellate brief). “[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are
sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with
pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with citations to legal
authorities.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.
2007) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(c).2
We “liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, [but] pro se
status confers no special benefit.” Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-
85 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). “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.” Id. at 1285 (citation omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel
and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Hardy, 918 A.2d
at 771 (citation omitted). “If a deficient brief hinders this Court’s ability to
address any issue on review, we shall consider the issue waived.”
____________________________________________
2 “Since the Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to criminal cases and civil
cases alike, the principles enunciated in criminal cases construing those rules
are equally applicable in civil cases.” Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141,
148 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
-4-
J-S07010-20
Commonwealth v. Jezzi, 208 A.3d 1105, 1110 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation
omitted).
Father’s brief does not contain a section captioned “argument,” but does
contain a section captioned “fraud upon the court,” which we treat as the
argument section. In it, Father alleges fraud and judicial misconduct from
2004 to May 16, 2019. Father’s Brief at 9-24. These factual allegations are
followed by citations to case law discussing judicial immunity, recusal, and
fraud upon the court. Id. at 25-28. However, Father’s brief never discusses
the June 26, 2019 support hearing or the July 15, 2019 order that are the
subjects of this appeal. Id. Father’s failure to develop any relevant
arguments hinders our ability to conduct meaningful review. See Jezzi, 208
A.3d at 1110. Accordingly, Father has waived any issues he sought to raise
on appeal, and we dismiss this appeal. See id.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/28/20
-5-