McLaren, K. v. Givens, S.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 15, 2026
• Docket: 2739 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S08030-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

KIMEISHA MCLAREN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHARIF GIVENS : : Appellant : No. 2739 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered September 24, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2024-28368

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER PER CURIAM: FILED JUNE 15, 2026

Sharif Givens (Father) appeals pro se from the order entered by the

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas which awarded him primary

physical custody and awarded Kimeisha McLaren (Mother) partial physical

custody of their now twelve-year-old son, S.G. (the Child). The order also

awarded Father and Mother shared legal custody. After review, we dismiss.

The underlying facts of this case are immaterial to our disposition

because substantial defects in Father’s brief preclude meaningful appellate

review. Nevertheless, we briefly note that the dispute here relates to custody

of the Child, Father’s contempt allegations against Mother, and Mother’s

request to relocate. After a two-day trial, the trial court entered the subject

custody order, and Father timely filed this appeal.

Father has failed to comply with many of our procedural rules. Father

failed to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal J-S08030-26

contemporaneously with his notice of appeal (or at any time thereafter), as

required in children’s fast-track cases. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Father

filed his brief in this Court late on January 14, 2026, a week after his extended

briefing deadline of January 7, 2026.

As to Father’s late brief, we note appellate briefs must materially

conform with the requirements of our Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2101. If an appellate brief or reproduced record fails to conform to

our rules, and the defects are substantial, we may quash or dismiss the

appeal. See id.

The Appellate Rules “state unequivocally that each question an appellant

raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.”

Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citations

omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing requirements for an appellant’s

brief) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing requirements for the argument section of an

appellate brief). Where “an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a

claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any

other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.” See B.S.G.

v. D.M.C., 255 A.3d 528, 535 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). The

argument section 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 not act

as an advocate or develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. Interest of

R.H., 320 A.3d 706, 716 (Pa. Super. 2024) (“It is not the obligation of this

Court [] to formulate Appellant’s arguments for him.” (citation omitted)). Nor

-2- J-S08030-26

will we scour a record to find evidence to support an appellant’s argument;

instead, we will find the issue waived. See Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065,

1079 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

Father’s pro se status does not relieve him of his obligation to adhere to

our Rules. “Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed

by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the

appellant.” Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031, 1037 (Pa. Super.

2018) (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 1037-38

(citation omitted).

Here, Father’s brief utterly fails to comply with our Rules. 1 His brief

lacks nearly every requirement of Rule 2111 including a statement of

jurisdiction, order or other determination in question, statement of the

questions involved, statement of the case, summary of the argument, and

argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).

Because Father’s brief does not contain a statement of the questions

involved, it is impossible for us to discern what issues Father is attempting to

raise on appeal. Thus, he has waived all issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No

question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions

involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”); In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462,

____________________________________________

1 Mother has filed an application to strike Father’s brief on this basis.

-3- J-S08030-26

466 (Pa. Super. 2017) (It “is well-settled that issues not included in an

appellant’s statement of questions involved and concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal are waived.” (citation omitted)).

Further, instead of a labeled argument section, Father’s brief contains

nearly one hundred pages of numbered paragraphs, with occasional headings

that do not actually raise discernable issues. See generally Father’s Brief.

Father’s brief also does not contain a copy of his Rule 1925(b) concise

statement (because he did not file one), nor does it contain the certificates of

compliance required by Appellate Rules 127 and 2135(d). Pa.R.A.P.

2111(a)(12).

Moreover, Father’s “argument” is substantially underdeveloped and

lacks meaningful discussion of, or citation to, relevant legal authority. Father

makes numerous bald allegations and conclusory statements, without

citations for support. His argument section contains no citations to the record.

See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c). Although Father broadly references some legal

authority, he fails to provide a cogent, let alone persuasive, analysis as to how

that authority affords him relief based on the facts of his case. See B.S.G.,

supra. Thus, Father has failed to raise any issues or apply the law to the

facts of his case in a meaningful and coherent manner as required by our

Rules of Appellate Procedure and case law. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Therefore,

we dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed. Mother’s Application to Strike denied as moot.

-4- J-S08030-26

Date: 6/15/2026

-5-