R.A. v. A.L.F.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 1506 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S37035-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

R.A. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : A.L.F. : No. 1506 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered May 14, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations at No(s): 0C1806435

BEFORE: BOWES, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

CONCURRING/DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:

FILED APRIL 9, 2025

I agree with the learned majority that all of Father’s issues are either

waived or meritless. See Maj. at 4-9. However, because I disagree with the

majority’s conclusion this matter is not moot, I am constrained to dissent from

that portion of the memorandum. See id. at 4 n. 3.

The majority concludes this case falls under the mootness exception for

issues that are capable of repetition yet evade review. See id. However, the

record demonstrates this matter did not evade review because of the nature

of the action, but because Father filed two motions which briefly delayed the

matter, and, of critical importance, failed in his duty to ensure the certified

record was complete. See Erie Insurance Exchange v. Moore, 175 A.3d

999, 1006 (Pa. Super. 2017) (assembly of a complete record on appeal is not

the responsibility of the Superior Court); Pa.R.A.P. 1921. Despite Father’s J-S37035-24

failure to file a complete record and his violation of the rules, this Court sought

out the transcripts, which resulted in a lengthy delay. During this period when

the Court sought the missing transcripts, the matter became moot. Father

should not benefit from his failure to adhere to our Rules of Appellate

Procedure, so I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion regarding

mootness.

-2-