In Re: M.J.R., Jr., a Minor

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 12, 2024
• Docket: 1682 MDA 2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S19001-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: M.J.R., JR., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: C.R-M., MOTHER : : : : : : No. 1682 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered November 3, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Orphans' Court at No(s): 88453

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: JULY 12, 2024

Appellant, C.R-M. (“Mother”) appeals the November 3, 2023 order

entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas that involuntarily

terminated her parental rights to eight-year-old M.J.R. (“Child”). Upon

review, we dismiss this appeal due to the substantial defects in Mother’s brief

to this Court.

A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is unnecessary

to our disposition. Briefly, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent in 2018

and again on July 27, 2020, for lack of proper parental care stemming from

domestic violence issues, lack of parenting skills, lack of parental supervision,

inappropriate physical discipline, and failure to cooperate with Berks County

Children and Youth Services (“the Agency”). The court ordered Mother to

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S19001-24

comply with Agency supervision within the home. On October 1, 2021, the

Agency found Mother to be a perpetrator of abuse against Child’s older

brother. On October 28, 2021, the court granted the Agency’s request to

place Child in foster care due to concerns regarding inadequate housing,

truancy, Mother’s ongoing lack of cooperation with the Agency, and Mother’s

founded report of abuse against Child’s sibling.

On November 3, 2022, the Agency filed a motion to suspend Mother’s

visitation with Child after the Agency received reports that Mother told Child

that 1) she would bring a knife and kill him during the next visit, and 2) she

would kill him in front of his therapist. Additionally, the Agency averred that

Child was extremely anxious during visits and expressed a desire to stop

visitation with Mother. On December 6, 2022, after a hearing, the trial court

suspended visitation between Mother and Child. Over the course of numerous

permanency review hearings, the court made findings that Mother made

minimal or no progress in alleviating the circumstances which necessitated

Child’s placement and was minimally to moderately compliant with the

permanency plan.

On January 20, 2023, the Agency filed a petition to terminate Mother’s

parental rights and the court subsequently appointed legal counsel for Child.

On November 3, 2023, after a three-day trial where the trial court heard

testimony from fourteen witnesses, the court found that the Agency provided

clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant

-2- J-S19001-24

to Sections 2511 (a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). Mother filed a timely pro se

notice of appeal.1

As stated above, Mother’s brief fails to comply with the briefing

requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2135 and we are, therefore, unable

to conduct meaningful appellate review.

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 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “[A]lthough

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.”

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

1 On January 8, 2024, this Court directed the trial court to clarify the status

of Mother’s representation and whether Appellant’s waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pursuant to Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998). On January 22, 2024, the trial court confirmed that it held a Grazier hearing on December 21, 2023, and subsequently found that Mother knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to be represented by counsel on appeal.

-3- J-S19001-24

developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of appellate

procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101-2119. “The Rules of Appellate Procedure [] state

unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by

discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz,

232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). 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 multiple

attempts at persuasive argument in violation of Rule 2117(b). See Mother’s

Br. at 14-16. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2117(a)-(b) (setting forth

requirements for the statement of the case section). Essentially, Mother uses

the statement of the case to assert personal grievances rather than provide a

procedural and factual history.

Notably, Mother fails to provide a statement of the questions involved

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4). The omission of a statement of questions

-4- J-S19001-24

involved is “particularly grievous since the statement of questions involved

defines the specific issues this Court is asked to review.” Commonwealth v.

Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Pa. Super. 1993).

In addition, Mother’s Argument section is markedly underdeveloped

and, at times, impossible to decipher. Although Mother randomly cites to

boilerplate legal authority in bullet points throughout the brief, she fails to

apply the law to the facts of this case in a meaningful and coherent manner

with citation to the record, as required by our Rules of Appellate Procedure

and case law. See Mother’s Br. at 18-26. In fact, 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.

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-

written and comprehensive December 29, 2023 opinion and discern no abuse

of discretion.

Appeal dismissed.

-5- J-S19001-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 07/12/2024

-6-