V.S. v. A.A. ( 2017 )

J-A09041-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
V.S. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
A.A. :
:
Appellant : No. 1634 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree August 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Civil Division at No(s): 2016-FC-40428
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 24, 2017
Appellant, A.A. (“Paternal Grandmother”), appeals pro se from the
decree entered in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, which
found her in contempt of a custody order. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
M.S. (“Mother”) and J.A., Sr. (“Father”) are the natural parents of J.A., Jr.
(“Child”), born in January 2016. On January 19, 2016, Mother and Father
executed a “letter of guardianship” that gave temporary custody of Child to
Paternal Grandmother because Mother was incarcerated and Father was
incapable of caring for Child. Mother and Father intended to give Paternal
Grandmother custody of Child until they were “back on their feet.” Paternal
Grandmother resides in New Jersey. On March 31, 2016, Paternal
Grandmother filed, in Pennsylvania, an emergency petition for special relief
J-A09041-17
and a petition for custody, claiming Mother and Father were incapable of
caring for Child. The court entered an order that day granting Paternal
Grandmother temporary legal and physical custody of Child pending a
hearing. On or around April 5, 2016, Appellee V.S. (“Maternal
Grandmother”) wrote a letter to the court expressing her desire to have
custody of Child. Following a hearing on April 12, 2016, the court entered
an order the next day,1 awarding Paternal Grandmother legal and primary
physical custody of Child; the court gave Maternal Grandmother partial
physical custody of Child. On April 19, 2016, Maternal Grandmother filed a
formal petition for custody. The court held a hearing on April 22, 2016.
Following the hearing, the court entered an amended custody order that
retained the same custody arrangement as the April 13, 2016 order but
amended the location of custody exchanges.
On August 8, 2016, Maternal Grandmother filed a petition for
contempt, alleging Paternal Grandmother refused to let Maternal
Grandmother exercise her periods of partial physical custody as specified in
the April 2016 court orders. That day, the court issued a rule to show cause
and scheduled a hearing on the matter for August 29, 2016. The court held
a contempt hearing on the scheduled date; Paternal Grandmother failed to
____________________________________________
1
This order is inadvertently dated April 13, 2015. We reject Paternal
Grandmother’s contention that this obvious typographical error means the
order was “falsified.”
-2-
J-A09041-17
appear for the hearing. Counsel for Maternal Grandmother informed the
court that she had notified Paternal Grandmother of the contempt hearing by
regular and certified mail. Counsel stated the regular mail was not returned,
and Paternal Grandmother refused to accept the certified mail. Child’s
Mother was no longer incarcerated, appeared at the contempt hearing, and
told the court she had spoken with Paternal Grandmother about the
contempt hearing. According to Mother, Paternal Grandmother said she did
not need to appear for the contempt hearing because she lived in New
Jersey, so the order scheduling the contempt hearing did not apply to her.
Following the hearing, the court found Paternal Grandmother in contempt
and temporarily gave Maternal Grandmother four months’ make-up time
under the court’s custody order.
Paternal Grandmother filed a petition for reconsideration on
September 7, 2016, insisting she did not receive “notice” of the contempt
hearing. The court held a hearing on the petition on September 21, 2016.
Following the hearing, the court denied reconsideration but amended its
contempt order to permit Paternal Grandmother visitation with Child during
the four months that Maternal Grandmother would exercise her make-up
time. The court expressly stated that, at the conclusion of the four-month
period, Child would return to Paternal Grandmother’s custody under the April
2016 custody order, unless and until another party filed a petition for
modification of custody. On September 28, 2016, Paternal Grandmother
-3-
J-A09041-17
timely filed a pro se notice of appeal and concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).2
As a prefatory matter, 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. D. 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
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).
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:
____________________________________________
2
According to the trial court, Mother has filed a petition for custody of Child,
which is stayed pending this appeal.
-4-
J-A09041-17
(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.
Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a), (b). See also C. 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;
-5-
J-A09041-17
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
argument concerning her claim on appeal; appellant’s argument lacked
meaningful substance and consisted of mere conclusory statements;
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,
892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super 2006) (explaining appellant’s arguments must
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
authority; absent reasoned discussion of law in appellate brief, this Court’s
ability to provide appellate review is hampered, necessitating waiver of issue
on appeal).
Instantly, Paternal Grandmother is pro se on appeal. Paternal
-6-
J-A09041-17
Grandmother filed her initial appellate brief on November 1, 2016. On
November 22, 2016, Paternal Grandmother filed a first amended brief.
Paternal Grandmother filed a second amended brief on November 28, 2016,
along with her reproduced record. Paternal Grandmother’s initial appellate
brief contains no statement of the case. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a). Paternal
Grandmother’s amended brief contains a statement of the case which
consists of her “spin” on the facts. Paternal Grandmother omits relevant
facts necessary to decide the issue on appeal and instead provides her legal
theory of the case. Paternal Grandmother’s one-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; C. Jones, supra.
Additionally, Paternal Grandmother’s initial brief contains multiple
sections titled “Statement of Question Involved.” On her first “page 7,”3
Paternal Grandmother raises six issues, followed by a dialogue exchange,
followed by a narrative of her version of the facts. On her second “page 7,”
also titled “Statement of the Question Involved,” Paternal Grandmother
raises another issue. From these separate sections, Paternal Grandmother
fails to clarify which particular issues she seeks to assert on appeal. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (explaining statement of questions involved must state
____________________________________________
3
This brief has duplicative page numbers.
-7-
J-A09041-17
concisely issues to be resolved, expressed in terms and circumstances of
case but without unnecessary detail; no question will be considered unless it
is stated in statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby).
Adding further confusion, Paternal Grandmother’s argument section in her
initial appellate brief is less than one page and consists of six bulleted
points, none of which advances a cogent argument or meaningful discussion
of, or citation to, relevant legal authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
Paternal Grandmother’s first amended brief contains no statement of
the questions presented or any separate argument section. See Pa.R.A.P.
2116(a); 2119(a). See also Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159(Pa.Super. 1996) (stating omission of statement of questions presented is
particularly grievous because statement of questions presented defines
specific issues appellate court is asked to review; when omission of
statement of questions presented is combined with lack of any organized
and developed arguments, it becomes clear that appellant’s brief is
insufficient for meaningful appellate review). Rather, throughout her first
amended brief, Paternal Grandmother’s legal argument is interwoven into
her statement of the case. Paternal Grandmother’s second amended brief is
essentially a duplicate of her first amended brief (similarly containing no
statement of questions presented or separate argument section) but adds
law that is irrelevant to the case, such as the law surrounding involuntary
termination of parental rights. The defects in Paternal Grandmother’s
-8-
J-A09041-17
appellate briefs are substantial. Paternal Grandmother’s failure to comply
with the applicable rules of appellate procedure and develop her claims
properly on appeal precludes meaningful review and constitutes waiver of
her issue(s) for appellate purposes. See Lackner, supra; Estate of
Haiko; Butler, supra. See also In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa.Super.
2006) (holding mother’s failure to support claim on appeal with relevant
legal authority or discussion precluded appellate review of issue).4
Accordingly, we affirm. See generally In re K.L.S., 594 Pa. 194, 197 n.3,
934 A.2d 1244, 1246 n.3 (2007) (stating where issues are waived on
appeal, we should affirm rather than quash appeal).
Decree affirmed. Case is stricken from argument list.
____________________________________________
4
On February 21, 2017, Paternal Grandmother filed an application for relief
in this Court demanding a jury trial, claiming the trial judge, inter alia,
“abused” and “slandered” Paternal Grandmother. Paternal Grandmother also
alleged that Maternal Grandmother’s sibling paid off the trial judge. On
March 1, 2017, Paternal Grandmother filed a petition in this Court purporting
to request a transfer of this case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On
March 13, 2017, Paternal Grandmother filed a “petition for writ of
prohibition,” asking this Court to prohibit the trial judge from abusing his
powers. Paternal Grandmother also filed on March 13, 2017, an “application
for ruling,” claiming, inter alia, the trial court violated her human rights. We
deny all of Paternal Grandmother’s various open requests for relief.
-9-
J-A09041-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/24/2017
- 10 -