Williams, S. v. Williams, S.

Opinion

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

SAJARVIN WILLIAMS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

:

v. :

:

:

STEFANIE WILLIAMS : No. 231 EDA 2026

Appeal from the Order Entered January 9, 2026 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No(s):

2022-04810-CU

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., MURRAY, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. * MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 18, 2026 Sajarvin Williams (Father) appeals pro se from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, awarding him shared custody of his three minor children, with Stefanie Williams (Mother). Father maintains that the trial court wrongly denied him the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, failed to properly consider evidence, abused its discretion in weighing the evidence, and improperly amended a final custody order via reconsideration. We find no relief is due and affirm.

The trial court set forth the procedural and factual history of this case as follows:

The parties married in 2012, and the children were born of the marriage. The parties separated in March[ of] 2022 and in April[ of] 2022, the parties divorced. Father filed a complaint for

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

custody in July[ of] 2022. Following a custody and school choice trial, on August 28, 2023, the court awarded the parties shared legal custody and Mother primary physical custody of the children.

Father was awarded partial physical custody of the children every other weekend from Friday until school drop-off on Monday and certain Wednesday overnights.

In February[ of] 2024, in resolution of a number of petitions filed subsequently by the parties, the court entered a custody order which directed, among other things[:] (i) that neither party was to engage in corporal punishment of the children[;] (ii) that the parties were to ensure the non-custodial party had daily telephone/FaceTime access (from 7:45 pm until 8:15 pm) with the children[;] and (iii) that the parties were to engage in family counseling with the eldest son[.]

In August 2024, Father filed [a] petition to modify[,] seeking shared physical custody of the children, a change in schools requiring all the children be enrolled in the Avon Grove School District (“Avon Grove”), a sleep apnea test for the middle son, and a “comprehensive” educational assessment of the oldest child.

On November 14, 2024, following conciliation, the court entered an interim custody order affirming the custody orders of February 8, 2024[,] and August 28, 2023.

On November 27, 2024, Father filed his demand for trial.

In early 2025, Mother filed a petition for special relief[,]

requesting a school change for the youngest son[.] She requested that [the child] attend the same Catholic school as his siblings.

Following a hearing on Mother’s request, on April 23, 2025, the court directed that [child to] attend Assumption Blessed Virgin Mary [] School of West Grove beginning August[ of] 2025, and continuing until the parties agreed otherwise or further order of the court.

Trial in this matter was scheduled before the Honorable Allison Bell Royer on July 14, 2025. On the morning of trial, Father notified the court that he had filed a complaint in Commonwealth Court against Judge Royer, as well as the entire Chester County Court of Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Pennsylvania State Police, the Chester County District Attorney’s Office, the Chester County Department of Children, Youth & Family Services (“CYF”), the Chester County Intermediate Unit, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Mother, and two of Father’s

3

previous attorneys. He attempted to serve Judge Royer in court the morning of trial after he sought her recusal. Judge Royer recused herself and the matter was reassigned to the undersigned.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/2/26, at 1-3 (unnecessary capitalization omitted; some paragraph breaks added).

Following a multi-day custody trial, the trial court entered a final custody order on December 11, 2025. On December 23, 2025, Mother filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the final order. On December 31, 2025, Father filed a consolidated response to Mother’s motion as well as a motion for mistrial or, in the alternative, for a new evidentiary hearing. On January 9, 2026, the trial court entered orders granting in part Mother’s request for reconsideration of the December 11, 2025 final order and denying Father’s request for a mistrial. Father timely appealed but failed to concomitantly file a concise statement pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a)(2)(i) where this is a Children’s Fast Track Appeal. 1 The trial court did not order Father to file a Rule 1925 statement but nevertheless filed an opinion in support of its orders on February 2, 2026.

____________________________________________

1 See Pa.R.A.P. 102 (defining Children’s Fast Track Appeal as “Any appeal from an order involving dependency, termination of parental rights, adoptions, custody, paternity, or delinquency, except out-of-home placements under Pa.R.A.P. 1612.”).

4

On March 11, 2026, Father filed his appellant’s brief and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this Court. We denied Father’s application to proceed IFP on March 17, 2026.2 On June 4, 2026, Father filed an application for relief in this Court, seeking permission to supplement the record upon his acquisition of transcripts of the trial court proceedings, which transcripts he admits are relevant to our review of the issues in his appeal. On July 2, 2026, this Court granted Father an additional thirty days to file the relevant transcripts in connection with this appeal. On July 20, 2026, Father filed another application for relief in this Court, informing this Court that he is unable to pay for the cost of transcription of the relevant transcripts and is not seeking any additional extension of time to file them. Instead, Father requests “whatever relief” this Court deems appropriate under these circumstances, “despite [Father]’s demonstrated financial inability to purchase the transcripts.” Application for Relief, 7/20/26, at 2.

____________________________________________

2 The record reflects that the trial court denied Father’s application for IFP status on June 30, 2025. In his motion to proceed IFP filed in this Court, Father asserts that the trial court also denied his similar motion to proceed IFP on February 12, 2026. Nevertheless, there is no indication in the record that Father appealed from either trial court order denying the grant of his requested IFP status and Father does not raise issues as to the denials of that status as a subject of this appeal. See Grant v. Blaine, 868 A.2d 400, 402 (Pa. 2005) (order denying requested IFP status is final appealable order); see also Amrhein v. Amrhein, 903 A.2d 17, 19 (Pa. Super. 2006) (denial of IFP status reviewed for abuse of discretion). Indeed, Father makes no argument on appeal challenging the IFP denials or applying the appropriate standard of review or applicable IFP law to the facts of this case.

5

We now deny Father’s application for relief 3 filed July 20, 2026, and proceed to review Father’s claims to the extent we can do so. See Mazzarese v. Mazzarese, 319 A.3d 586, 596 (Pa. Super. 2024) (stating “it is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the certified record contains all documents necessary so that this Court is able to review [the] claims”); see also Smith v. Smith, 637 A.2d 622, 623-24 (Pa. Super. 1993) (noting appellate court cannot consider anything which is not part of record, it is appellant’s duty to supply complete record for review, and appellant’s failure to ensure that certified record for appeal contains sufficient information to conduct proper review constitutes waiver of issues).

On appeal, Father presents the following issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court violate [Father]’s due process rights by denying meaningful cross-examination during the custody trial and by limiting [his] questioning despite a timely objection?

2. Did the trial court err in denying [Father]’s motion for mistrial after restricting cross-examination and concluding the record was “complete”?

3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to properly consider evidence that [Mother] interfered with Appellant’s custodial time with the parties’ minor child B.R.W.?

4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in its analysis of the custody factors under 23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a)?

5. Did the trial court improperly amend the custody order through reconsideration after the final order had been entered?

Appellant’s Brief at 2 (unpaginated).

____________________________________________

3 As stated, this Court and the trial court have already denied Father’s applications to proceed IFP.

6

After our review, we conclude that Father’s failure to ensure that the transcripts of the relevant trial court proceedings were included in the certified record prevents our meaningful review of Father’s first four issues on appeal. See Mazzarese, 319 A.3d at 596 (concluding that claims are unreviewable where appellant did not ensure transcripts relating to issue were included in certified record); see also Smith, 637 A.2d at 623-24. Accordingly, we proceed to our consideration of Father’s fifth issue on appeal.

In his fifth issue, Father’s argument, in its entirety, states:

After entering the custody order, the trial court granted reconsideration and amended the order to deny several requests made by [Father].

Reconsideration should not be used to add new substantive rulings after entry of a final custody order.

By amending the order after the fact, the trial court exceeded the proper scope of reconsideration and deprived [Father] of a full opportunity to litigate those issues.

Appellants’ Brief at 6 (unpaginated).

After our review, we observe that Father’s brief violates Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(a) for this portion of his argument insofar as the brief fails to cite to any relevant case law or other authority in support of his claim for relief. See 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). In addition

7

to these deficiencies, the argument is underdeveloped and lacks specificity. See In the Int. of R.H., 320 A.3d 706, 716 (Pa. Super. 2024) (appellate courts will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on party’s behalf). These material brief deficiencies require we find Father’s fifth issue waived.4 See B.S.G. v. D.M.C., 255 A.3d 528, 535 (Pa. Super. 2021); see also Garr v. Peters, 773 A.2d 183, 188 (Pa. Super. 2001). Thus, Father is not due relief on any issue in this appeal.

Order affirmed. Application for relief denied.

Date: 8/18/2026

____________________________________________

4 Even if not waived, we observe that trial courts may reconsider their prior

rulings in the domestic relations context, which the trial court did in this case, expressly granting reconsideration prior to the expiration of the appeal period. See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1930.2(b); see also K.T.R. v. L.S., 238 A.3d 478, 480-82 (Pa. Super. 2020).