Willhide, K. v. Willhide, T.
This text of Willhide, K. v. Willhide, T. (Willhide, K. v. Willhide, T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-A15033-26
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
KIMBERLEA WILLHIDE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TIMOTHY WILLHIDE : : Appellant : No. 9 MDA 2026
Appeal from the Order Entered December 8, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Civil Division at No(s): 2020-05704
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., LANE, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED: MAY 22, 2026
Timothy Willhide (Father) appeals pro se from the custody order entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on December 8, 2025,1
regarding A.L.W. (born 2014), who is the child of Father and Kimberlea
Willhide (Mother). We dismiss the appeal due to Father’s failure to comply
with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which violations have meaningfully
impeded our review of this appeal.
Briefly, Father timely appealed the custody order2 relating to A.L.W. on
December 29, 2025, and he contemporaneously filed his concise statement ____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 The order is dated December 4, 2025, but was entered on the docket pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 236 on December 8, 2025.
2 The order granted Mother sole legal custody and primary physical custody
of A.L.W. and granted Father partial physical custody of the child. J-A15033-26
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)(2)(i). In his
brief filed in this Court, Father’s statement of questions involved, see
Pa.R.A.P. 2116, purports to present seven unnumbered issues, with multiple
sub-issues for our review. See Appellant’s Brief at 1-3 (unpaginated). Within
the argument portion of his brief, Father purports to raise issues under ten
different headings. See id. at 4-5 (unpaginated).
After our review, we are unable to address the merits of any of the
issues presented in Father’s brief because of the substantial defects and
violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure that have materially impeded
our merits review—especially with regard to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 2119. See Noon v. Martin, 2025 WL 3564214, at *5 (Pa. Super.,
filed Dec. 12, 2025) (dismissing appeals from custody order based on
appellant’s material violations of Pa.R.A.P. 2119; unpublished memorandum
decision cited for persuasive authority pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)); see
also Thurston v. Watson, 2025 WL 369839, at *4-*7 (Pa. Super., filed Feb.
3, 2025) (same); see also Boltersdorf v. Boltersdorf, 2022 WL 17884060,
at *5-*6 (Pa. Super., filed Dec. 23, 2022) (same).
Specifically, Father materially fails to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 2119 insofar as the argument portion of his brief, see
Appellant’s Brief at 4-5 (unpaginated), reads as a list rather than as reasoned
argument, makes neither any citation to the record nor to any case law, and
-2- J-A15033-26
it only cites, in a few instances, indirectly to 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5323 and 5328.3
See In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Appellate Courts “will
not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.
Moreover, when defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful
appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to
be waived.”) (citation omitted); see also C.H.L. v. W.D.L., 214 A.3d 1272,
1277-78 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“It is not the duty of this Court to act as
appellant’s counsel, and we decline to do so. We shall not develop an
argument for an appellant, nor shall we scour the record to find evidence to
support an argument; instead, we will deem the issue to be waived.”)
(citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The
argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions
to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part—in distinctive type or
in type distinctively displayed—the particular point treated therein, followed
by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed
pertinent.”) (emphasis added); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (stating that “if the
defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant and are
substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed”)
(emphasis added). Moreover, although Father is a pro se party, he must
adhere to the procedural rules. See Norman for Estate of Shearlds v.
____________________________________________
3 Father’s reply brief does not correct these material deficiencies, which were
first correctly identified by Mother’s appellee’s brief.
-3- J-A15033-26
Temple Univ. Health Sys., 208 A.3d 1115, 1118-19 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(“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. 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.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also
Hoover v. Davila, 862 A.2d 591, 595-96 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“A pro se litigant
is not absolved from complying with procedural rules.”). Accordingly, we
dismiss Father’s appeal in its entirety where the substantial defects in Father’s
brief have materially hampered our substantive review of the merits of his
claims.4
We direct the prothonotary to strike this appeal from the June 24, 2026
argument list.
Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from the argument list. Appellee’s
application for continuance of oral argument denied as moot.
4 Even if this Court reached the merits of the appeal, we would affirm because
we agree with the reasoning of the trial court in its well-written and comprehensive opinion, dated December 4, 2025, and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law.
-4- J-A15033-26
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 05/22/2026
-5-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Willhide, K. v. Willhide, T., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willhide-k-v-willhide-t-pasuperct-2026.