J-A27007-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MELODY BOLTERSDORF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : STEPHEN BOLTERSDORF, TERRY : IRVIN AND GLORIA IRVIN : : No. 952 MDA 2022 : APPEAL OF: MELODY ELLBERGER, : F/K/A MELODY BOLTERSDORF :
Appeal from the Order Entered June 6, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2017-FC-002455-03
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 23, 2022
Melody Ellberger f/k/a Melody Boltersdorf (“Mother”) appeals pro se
from the June 6, 2022 Order that granted the Petition for Modification of
Custody filed by Terry and Gloria Irvin (“Paternal Grandparents”) and reduced
Mother’s partial physical custody of her children, M.B. and N.B. (collectively,
“Children”), to one weekend per month. Upon review, we dismiss this appeal
due to the substantial defects in Mother’s Brief to this Court.
The relevant procedural and factual history is as follows. Mother and
Stephen Boltersdorf (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) are parents to M.B.,
born in June 2009, and N.B., born in August 2010. Children have special
needs and suffer from cerebral palsy and autism, respectively, among other ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A27007-22
disabilities. In 2017, Children were removed from Parents and placed in the
care of Paternal Grandparents after the Chester County Children and Youth
Services investigated allegations of truancy, neglect, and unsanitary living
conditions.1 On August 17, 2017, the juvenile court awarded Paternal
Grandparents sole legal custody and primary physical custody of Children,
Mother partial physical custody every Friday evening, and Father partial
physical custody as agreed upon between Paternal Grandparents and Father.
On June 22, 2018, upon consideration of Mother’s Complaint for
Custody, the trial court ordered Paternal Grandparents to retain sole legal
custody2 and primary physical custody, but increased Mother’s partial physical
custody to every other weekend. During this time, Father lived with Children
and Paternal Grandparents and continued to have periods of partial physical
custody upon agreement of Paternal Grandparents.
On November 1, 2021, Paternal Grandparents filed a Petition to Modify
Custody seeking to decrease Mother’s custodial time alleging, inter alia, that
Mother takes only one of the siblings for visits which upsets Children,
frequently cancels her custody time, interferes in Children’s medical care to
____________________________________________
1 Multiple animals lived in the home and contributed to the unsanitary living conditions, including numerous cats, a pot-belly pig, bearded dragons, and chickens.
2 Specifically, the order states: “The [c]ourt awards sole legal custody and primary physical custody to Paternal Grandparents. . . Notwithstanding that Paternal Grandparents have sole legal custody, Father and Mother shall have access to the children’s medical, dental, religious, and school records[.]” Final Order of Custody, 6/22/18 (emphasis omitted).
-2- J-A27007-22
Children’s detriment, and lives in a camper moving from campground to
campground refusing to provide a physical location while N.B. is in her
custody. See Petition for Modification, 11/1/21, at ¶ 6, 7, 8.
On June 6, 2022, after a custody trial, the trial court issued an Opinion
and Final Order of Custody, which granted Paternal Grandparents’ petition and
reduced Mother’s custodial time to one weekend per month. The trial court
also noted that Mother is a participant in the Address Confidentiality Program
and ordered that pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6708(3), the Office of Victim
Advocate shall provide Mother’s actual address to Paternal Grandparents’
counsel. The court further ordered that Paternal Grandparents’ counsel “shall
not disclose the address of Mother absent an emergency.” Order, 6/6/22, at
10-11.
Mother filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal and a contemporaneous
Rule 1925(b) statement, raising five issues. The trial court filed a responsive
Rule 1925(a) opinion.
In her brief to this Court, Mother raises eight issues for our review. See
Mother’s Br. at 23-25. For the reasons discussed infra, we are unable to
provide meaningful review of any of them.
Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or
dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth v.
Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
“[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro
-3- J-A27007-22
se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an
appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251–52 (Pa. Super.
2003). “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.” Adams, 882 A.2d at 498.
It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be
developed with citation to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P
2119(a)-(c). This Court will address only those issues properly presented and
developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of appellate
procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101-2119. As this Court has made clear, we “will not
act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.
2007). “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour
the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189
A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).
Here, we are unable to provide meaningful review. Comprised primarily
of personal grievances untethered to legal analysis and citations to the record,
Mother’s brief utterly fails to comport with our rules of appellate procedure.
As a result, our review is fatally hampered and, accordingly, we are
constrained to dismiss this appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Specifically, in her Statement of the Case, Mother fails to reference the
record as required by Rule 2117(a)(4), and impermissibly includes an attempt
at persuasive argument in violation of Rule 2117(b). See Mother’s Br. at 25-
-4- J-A27007-22
27. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)-(b) (setting forth requirements for the
statement of the case section).
In addition, Mother’s Argument section is markedly underdeveloped
and, at times, impossible to decipher. Significantly, Mother fails to divide the
argument into “as many parts as there are questions to be argued” pursuant
to Rule 2119(a) and, instead, purports to include all eight of her claims in one
disorganized and rambling Argument section. Moreover, although Mother
randomly cites to boilerplate legal authority throughout the brief, she fails to
analyze and apply the cited law to the facts of this case as required by Rule
2119(a)-(c). See, e.g., Mother’s Br. at 40-41, 43-45. Most fatal to our
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A27007-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MELODY BOLTERSDORF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : STEPHEN BOLTERSDORF, TERRY : IRVIN AND GLORIA IRVIN : : No. 952 MDA 2022 : APPEAL OF: MELODY ELLBERGER, : F/K/A MELODY BOLTERSDORF :
Appeal from the Order Entered June 6, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2017-FC-002455-03
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 23, 2022
Melody Ellberger f/k/a Melody Boltersdorf (“Mother”) appeals pro se
from the June 6, 2022 Order that granted the Petition for Modification of
Custody filed by Terry and Gloria Irvin (“Paternal Grandparents”) and reduced
Mother’s partial physical custody of her children, M.B. and N.B. (collectively,
“Children”), to one weekend per month. Upon review, we dismiss this appeal
due to the substantial defects in Mother’s Brief to this Court.
The relevant procedural and factual history is as follows. Mother and
Stephen Boltersdorf (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) are parents to M.B.,
born in June 2009, and N.B., born in August 2010. Children have special
needs and suffer from cerebral palsy and autism, respectively, among other ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A27007-22
disabilities. In 2017, Children were removed from Parents and placed in the
care of Paternal Grandparents after the Chester County Children and Youth
Services investigated allegations of truancy, neglect, and unsanitary living
conditions.1 On August 17, 2017, the juvenile court awarded Paternal
Grandparents sole legal custody and primary physical custody of Children,
Mother partial physical custody every Friday evening, and Father partial
physical custody as agreed upon between Paternal Grandparents and Father.
On June 22, 2018, upon consideration of Mother’s Complaint for
Custody, the trial court ordered Paternal Grandparents to retain sole legal
custody2 and primary physical custody, but increased Mother’s partial physical
custody to every other weekend. During this time, Father lived with Children
and Paternal Grandparents and continued to have periods of partial physical
custody upon agreement of Paternal Grandparents.
On November 1, 2021, Paternal Grandparents filed a Petition to Modify
Custody seeking to decrease Mother’s custodial time alleging, inter alia, that
Mother takes only one of the siblings for visits which upsets Children,
frequently cancels her custody time, interferes in Children’s medical care to
____________________________________________
1 Multiple animals lived in the home and contributed to the unsanitary living conditions, including numerous cats, a pot-belly pig, bearded dragons, and chickens.
2 Specifically, the order states: “The [c]ourt awards sole legal custody and primary physical custody to Paternal Grandparents. . . Notwithstanding that Paternal Grandparents have sole legal custody, Father and Mother shall have access to the children’s medical, dental, religious, and school records[.]” Final Order of Custody, 6/22/18 (emphasis omitted).
-2- J-A27007-22
Children’s detriment, and lives in a camper moving from campground to
campground refusing to provide a physical location while N.B. is in her
custody. See Petition for Modification, 11/1/21, at ¶ 6, 7, 8.
On June 6, 2022, after a custody trial, the trial court issued an Opinion
and Final Order of Custody, which granted Paternal Grandparents’ petition and
reduced Mother’s custodial time to one weekend per month. The trial court
also noted that Mother is a participant in the Address Confidentiality Program
and ordered that pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6708(3), the Office of Victim
Advocate shall provide Mother’s actual address to Paternal Grandparents’
counsel. The court further ordered that Paternal Grandparents’ counsel “shall
not disclose the address of Mother absent an emergency.” Order, 6/6/22, at
10-11.
Mother filed a timely pro se Notice of Appeal and a contemporaneous
Rule 1925(b) statement, raising five issues. The trial court filed a responsive
Rule 1925(a) opinion.
In her brief to this Court, Mother raises eight issues for our review. See
Mother’s Br. at 23-25. For the reasons discussed infra, we are unable to
provide meaningful review of any of them.
Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or
dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth v.
Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
“[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro
-3- J-A27007-22
se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an
appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245, 251–52 (Pa. Super.
2003). “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.” Adams, 882 A.2d at 498.
It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be
developed with citation to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P
2119(a)-(c). This Court will address only those issues properly presented and
developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of appellate
procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101-2119. As this Court has made clear, we “will not
act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super.
2007). “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour
the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]” Milby v. Pote, 189
A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).
Here, we are unable to provide meaningful review. Comprised primarily
of personal grievances untethered to legal analysis and citations to the record,
Mother’s brief utterly fails to comport with our rules of appellate procedure.
As a result, our review is fatally hampered and, accordingly, we are
constrained to dismiss this appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Specifically, in her Statement of the Case, Mother fails to reference the
record as required by Rule 2117(a)(4), and impermissibly includes an attempt
at persuasive argument in violation of Rule 2117(b). See Mother’s Br. at 25-
-4- J-A27007-22
27. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)-(b) (setting forth requirements for the
statement of the case section).
In addition, Mother’s Argument section is markedly underdeveloped
and, at times, impossible to decipher. Significantly, Mother fails to divide the
argument into “as many parts as there are questions to be argued” pursuant
to Rule 2119(a) and, instead, purports to include all eight of her claims in one
disorganized and rambling Argument section. Moreover, although Mother
randomly cites to boilerplate legal authority throughout the brief, she fails to
analyze and apply the cited law to the facts of this case as required by Rule
2119(a)-(c). See, e.g., Mother’s Br. at 40-41, 43-45. Most fatal to our
review, Mother fails to provide any references to the record as required by
Rule 2119(c). See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (a)-(c) (describing argument
section requirements).
In sum, Mother’s violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure preclude
this Court’s meaningful review. We decline to scour the record and may not
develop arguments on Mother’s behalf. Accordingly, we are constrained to
dismiss this appeal.3
Even if this Court were able to effectuate meaningful appellate review,
we would affirm. We agree with the reasoning of the trial court in its well-
3 Mother’s December 3, 2022 Motion for Sanctions is denied.
-5- J-A27007-22
written and comprehensive June 6, 2022 and July 20, 2022 opinions and
discern no abuse of discretion.4
Appeal dismissed. Motion for Sanctions denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 12/23/2022
4 Moreover, if this court were not constrained to dismiss this appeal due to briefing defects, we would be unable to address Mother’s final three issues contained in her brief because she failed to include them in her Rule 1925(b) statement. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”).
-6-