Webb, B. v. Webb, S.

Opinions

J-S14016-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

BRANDON MICHAEL WEBB : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : SHARLYNN KRISTINE WEBB : : Appellant : No. 1755 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered November 17, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s): 2024-FC-001049-03

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JULY 28, 2026

Sharlynn Kristine Webb (“Mother”) appeals from the order denying her

request to relocate to California. Mother argues the court’s analysis was

tainted by several factual misconceptions. We find Mother has waived all

issues and dismiss the appeal.

Mother is from California. She met Brandon Michael Webb (“Father”) in

Pennsylvania. The couple married and had two children, who were born in

2021 and 2024. Father left the marital residence in the fall of 2024.

Shortly thereafter, in January 2025, Father filed a complaint seeking

shared legal and physical custody of the children. Mother subsequently filed a

notice of proposed relocation seeking to move, with the children, to California. J-S14016-26

The court held hearings on October 1, 2025, and October 31, 2025. At

the conclusion of the second hearing, the court entered a final order1 awarding

the parties shared legal custody of the children. The court weighed the custody

and relocation factors and denied Mother’s proposed relocation. See Trial

Court Opinion, 1/16/26, at 7 (citing 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5328, 5337); see also

id. at 18, 20. It awarded Mother primary physical custody of the children

during the school year and Father primary physical custody during the

summers.

Relevant to this appeal, the court found that relocation factor two,

regarding “the age, developmental stage, needs of the child[,] and the likely

impact the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational and

emotional development, taking into consideration any special needs of the

child,” weighed in Father’s favor. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(2). The court

considered that one of the children — E.G.W. — was born with a cleft palate

that requires special medical care and for several years has received this care

from a team at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (“CHOP”). The court noted

that while the team’s surgeon was retiring, the team members would remain

the same. In finding for Father on this factor, the court considered it significant

that “Mother’s proposed move to California would have a significant impact on

the children’s emotional development as it relates to their relationship with

____________________________________________

1 The court entered interim custody orders in March and October 2025.

-2- J-S14016-26

Father, who resides in Pennsylvania and would not be able to have meaningful

periods of custody with the children.” Trial Ct. Op. at 12.

The court found relocation factor six – whether “the relocation will

enhance the general quality of life for the party seeking the relocation,

including, but not limited to, financial or emotional benefit or educational

opportunity” – did not weigh in Mother’s favor. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5337(h)(6).

The court observed that Mother’s job search in Pennsylvania “showed little

effort on Mother’s part to locate a job in her chosen (or a related[)] field[] in

Pennsylvania or anywhere on the East Cost.” Trial Ct. Op. at 13. It also found

that she had “tailored her job search such that the jobs and salaries in

Pennsylvania were significantly different than those she was applying for in

California.” Id. The court further noted that Mother had presented no evidence

regarding her proposed salary in comparison to the increased cost of living in

California. The court also considered “the significant travel expenses that

would be involved in child custody exchanges should Mother relocate across

the country, given the young ages of the children.” Id. It concluded that

Mother’s assertion that a relocation to California presented a financial benefit

was “entirely speculative[.]” Id. (italics removed).

The court similarly found that factor seven did not weigh in Mother’s

favor. This factor requires the court to consider whether “the relocation will

enhance the general quality of life for the child, including, but not limited to,

financial or emotional benefit or educational opportunity.” See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

5337(h)(7). The court found that although Mother testified that she had

-3- J-S14016-26

identified a dual language school for the children in California, the financial

and educational benefits for the children were, again, “entirely speculative.”

Trial Ct. Op. at 14 (italics removed). It found that Mother’s relocation to

California “would essentially deprive the children of any meaningful

relationship with their biological father . . . absent a few short visits throughout

the year,” and concluded that the hypothetical benefits for the children

advanced by Mother do not outweigh “[t]he emotional benefit of a meaningful

relationship with their biological parent and paternal relatives[.]” Id.

Mother appealed. However, Mother’s counsel failed to request the

transcripts when she filed her notice of appeal on December 12, 2025. See

Pa.R.A.P. 904(c); Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 668 A.2d

97, 102 (Pa. 1995) (“It is [the] appellant’s responsibility to ensure that any

relevant transcripts be ordered and filed as part of the original record”).2

Due to counsel’s failure to request the transcripts, when the trial court

drafted its opinion, it was without the benefit of final, certified copies of the

transcripts. See Trial Ct. Op. at 4-5 (stating opinion addresses Mother’s issues

2 Where an omission from the certified record renders it inadequate “to permit

‘meaningful review,’ . . . there is no support for an appellant’s arguments and, thus, there is no basis on which relief could be granted.” In re R.N.F., 52 A.3d 361, 363 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citation omitted). A failure to request the transcript may result in waiver of the issue or dismissal of the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d); Johnson, 668 A.2d at 102 (declining to review issue where appellant did not secure transcripts or request the trial court correct the omission); In re R.N.F., 52 A.3d at 364-65 (dismissing appeal for lack of transcript or re-creation of transcript); In re J.C., 5 A.3d 284, 288 (Pa.Super. 2010) (declining to consider document in custody case that was not included in the certified record).

-4- J-S14016-26

based on a rough drafts of the transcripts). The trial court transmitted the

certified record to this Court without the transcripts.

When we discovered the defect, on January 21, 2026, we ordered

Mother to request and pay for the transcripts on or before February 2, 2026.

We “cautioned that the failure to comply with this directive shall result in

dismissal of this appeal without further notice of [this C]ourt.” Order, 1/21/26

(per curiam) (emphasis added). Mother’s counsel then requested the

transcripts. See Response to Order, February 3, 2026. However, despite our

warning that we “shall” dismiss the case if Mother did not pay for the

transcripts, Mother did not submit the complete payment for the transcripts

until February 20, 2026 — well past the February 2 deadline. See Order,

2/25/26 (per curiam).

The court reporter eventually filed the transcripts in the trial court, in

late February and March 2026. However, Mother’s counsel took no action to

ensure they were transmitted to this Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1926(b) (allowing

a party to correct omissions from the record). When we commenced the

drafting of this memorandum (after receiving the parties’ briefs in March and

April), we discovered the transcripts were still missing. On our own initiative,

we requested the transcripts from the trial court, and on May 19, 2026, they

were at last transmitted to this Court.

Mother raises one issue: “Should the lower Court’s Order denying

Mother’s Petition to Relocate be reversed because it is based on speculation

-5- J-S14016-26

and factual findings that are contradicted by the undisputed evidence?”

Mother’s Br. at 3.

Mother asserts the court’s conclusions regarding relocation factors two,

six, and seven were not supported by the evidence of record. As to factor two,

Mother challenges the court’s conclusion that relocating to California would

disrupt E.G.W.’s dental care. Mother claims this ignores her unrefuted

testimony that a lead surgeon at CHOP is retiring, which will already disrupt

the continuity of E.G.W.’s care. She also posits the court disregarded that

E.G.W.’s surgery is not scheduled to occur for at least three more years, and

that Mother has located a suitable care team for him in California.

Regarding factor six, Mother asserts the record does not support the

court’s conclusion that her “job search in Pennsylvania was not thorough

enough, and that the salary she would earn would not satisfy the supposed

increased cost of living in California.” Id. at 10. She argues that in drawing

this conclusion, the court disregarded her testimony “that despite her

consistent search efforts, she has found no available jobs in Pennsylvania in

her area of expertise,” but has received job offers in her field in California. Id.

at 9. She argues the court erred in finding her new salary would be

incommensurate with a cost of living increase in California, when there was

no testimony to support this conclusion.

Finally, regarding factor seven, Mother asserts that there was no

evidence to contradict her testimony that she “is prepared to enroll her

-6- J-S14016-26

children in a far superior school in California that would expose the children to

an immersive learning experience in the Spanish language.” Id. at 11.

Father responds that Mother has waived her issues by failing to

reference the record evidence at any point in her argument. Father’s Br. at 9-

11 (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2119 and Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa.Super.

2018)).3 Mother did not file a reply brief.

We agree that Mother’s issues are waived. Rule 2119(c) provides that

where an appellant’s argument refers to evidence, it “must set forth, in

immediate connection therewith, or in a footnote thereto, a reference to the

place in the record where the matter referred to appears[.]” Pa.R.A.P.

2119(c). Even more on point, Rule 2119(d) states that where the appellant

challenges “the finding of, or the refusal to find . . . a fact,” the appellant’s

argument “must contain a synopsis of all the evidence on the point, with a

reference to the place in the record where the evidence may be found.”

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(d).

Where an appellant’s brief fails to conform to the Rules and its defects

are “substantial,” such that they “impair our ability to conduct appellate

review,” we may quash or dismiss the appeal, or find waiver. Pa.R.A.P. 2101;

AmeriChoice Fed. Credit Union v. Ross, 135 A.3d 1018, 1022 (Pa.Super.

2015) (citation omitted); see also Int. of D.C., 263 A.3d 326, 336 (Pa.Super.

2021) (finding issue waived where defects in brief, including failure to provide ____________________________________________

3 Father also argues that Mother has waived the issues that she raised in her

Rule 1925(b) Statement of Errors but did not pursue in her brief.

-7- J-S14016-26

citations to the record “severely hamper[ed] our ability to conduct meaningful

appellate review”); In re Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d 470, 474 (Pa.Super.

2018) (finding defects in brief required waiver of issue); Milby, 189 A.3d at

1079 (stating an appellate court will not “scour the record to find evidence to

support an argument; instead, we will deem issue to be waived”).

Here, Mother argues the court misapprehended facts she claims to have

proven through her testimony. Yet, Mother’s counsel has not cited the places

in the record where the relevant testimony may be found. Mother’s counsel

does not make any citations to the record in the statement of the case, either.

Counsel’s failure prevents us from conducting meaningful appellate

review. We decline to search the record to locate the evidence relevant to

Mother’s issues. Without citations to the testimony, we cannot assess the trial

court’s conclusions. We find Mother’s issues waived, and dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

President Judge Emeritus Bender joins the memorandum.

Judge Kunselman files a concurring memorandum in which President Judge

Emeritus Bender joins.

-8- J-S14016-26

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/28/2026

-9-