P.R.D. v. K.H. ( 2020 )

J-S51013-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
P.R.D. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
K.H. : No. 869 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered May 21, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Domestic Relations at
No(s): 00440SA2015, PACSES# 899115170
BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED DECEMBER 11, 2020
P.R.D. (Father), who has been pro se throughout this action, appeals
from the order detailing his child support responsibility as it pertained to
unreimbursed medical expenses. We affirm.
In stating its decision on the record, the trial court explained:
The [c]ourt does not have evidence that the treatment that the
child received was not medically necessary or was otherwise
cosmetic in nature.
We do not believe that is [Father’s] argument, in any event.
He is arguing that he did not have a say in what these expenses
were, and he did not have any problems with the child when the
child was in his care. He is upset about the custodial arrangement,
but this [c]ourt is bound by the custodial arrangement that is in
place, and it does afford [Appellee] the right to make these
decisions and seek appropriate care for her son.
N.T., 5/21/20, at 2-3.
J-S51013-20
Father filed a notice of appeal on June 19, 2020, along with a narrative
“concise statement of matters.” The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion
on July 16, 2020. The trial court expressed its “belie[f that] the appeal should
be quashed for failure to identify an error by the [c]ourt pursuant to 1925(b),
or in the alternative, the Superior Court could find that the issues have been
waived.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/16/20, at 3-4. Nonetheless, the trial court
provided a comprehensive and thoughtful analysis in support of its May 21,
2020 order, and addressed what it perceived to be Father’s appellate issues.
See id. at 1-12.
On July 21, 2020, Appellee filed with this Court a motion to dismiss
Father’s appeal, followed by a motion to dismiss and quash on July 23, 2020.
Appellee asserted:
No averment nor argument has been raised on appeal to suggest
that these medical expenses were not incurred. Rather,
Appellant’s sole claim on Appeal is that he is unhappy with the
underlying custody arrangement. Appellant makes no request for
relief that could be granted by this Honorable Court, but instead
uses this Appeal as a platform to vent his frustration with the court
system, judges and counsel involved in the custody proceeding.
Motion to Dismiss and Quash Appeal, 7/23/20, at 1. By order entered August
4, 2020, we denied both motions without prejudice.
We recognize that Father’s brief is wholly deficient and in no way reflects
the content prescribed by our Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief,
independent of attachments, consists of 3 unnumbered pages, in which Father
provides his historical account of, inter alia, being denied a fair trial and
-2-
J-S51013-20
repeatedly encountering judicial bias. Father concedes he “has no court cases
to reference,” and makes no legal argument. See Father’s Brief at 3
(unnumbered).
The law is well settled:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court may quash or
dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the
requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure. 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.
Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations
omitted). In particular,
[t]he argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along with
discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. This Court will not
consider the merits of an argument which fails to cite relevant
case or statutory authority.
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Consistent with both the record and prevailing law, we agree with the
trial court and Appellee that this appeal could be dismissed or quashed.
However, given the trial court’s forbearance, we affirm its order, and adopt its
opinion. The Honorable Andrea Marceca Strong, sitting as the trial court,
explained:
The evidence presented by the Appellee/Mother at the
hearing was uncontroverted. Appellant/Father failed to contest
-3-
J-S51013-20
the validity of the medical bills presented as evidence, nor did he
contest the calculation of medical enforcement. Appellant/Father
argued that he should not be required to pay the child’s medical
expenses as he did not agree with the child receiving the indicated
treatments. He further argued against the parties’ current
custody agreement entered as an order of court on June 27, 2019.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/16/20, at 2.
The court detailed the terms of the parties’ custody, as well as their
respective child support obligations, and emphasized that it “repeatedly
informed Appellant/Father that we were unable to address custody matters
during a support hearing and that the only matter before the court was
medical reimbursement.” Id. at 6. The court additionally addressed Father’s
claims of judicial bias, stating:
The record will reflect that the [c]ourt was merely noting
that argument was not a basis for excusing the obligation of
Appellant/Father. At no time did the [c]ourt laugh at or mock the
Appellant/Father, nor was the [c]ourt sarcastic or degrading
toward Father or men in general. To the contrary, the [c]ourt, at
all times, engaged in a respectful exchange with the parties in an
effort to keep them focused on the issue pending before the
[c]ourt. While acknowledging the concerns expressed by Father,
we patiently attempted to redirect Father to the focus of the
proceedings. The decision was based solely on the evidence
before the [c]ourt, which supported reimbursement to the parent
that incurred the expenses, without regard to gender.
Id. at 8-9.
In sum, and for the above reasons, Father’s appeal lacks merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court and incorporate its thorough and well-
reasoned opinion in this decision.
Order affirmed.
-4-
J-S51013-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/11/2020
-5-
'st. -
..l
Circulated 12/11/2020 02:07 PM
IN .THE COtnlT-OF·.COMMON PL:tJ\S ·oy YORK C�OIJNU\P.ENNSYLVANIA
I{'
.· .. : ·ft� .. ...., f/k/� ... N.'.f!... 00�40 S� ?OlS. _
JC
, \
t:
lY P�C,SEB.: 899115170
:Plaintiff�, :-
..
·V'.'
·•.
••· ·ACTION·IN SUPPORT
P..
.. ·- ' �D- ' ,
.. .
·,
..
D·eren·d:�� •
"OPINioN··PtiRSUANT TO
rENNSYpVANIA. RULE OF AP.l.>ltLLATE PRO:C_EDURE 1925(a)_
,A.Np' xow, this J/othday.:··of July; ·20:2Q, the Cqurt has .been notified·
·I)
"Appellant/F�er,.). Respondent · .is K
i), Jpeteinafter ''Ap.pell�e!Mother�>) •.Pursuant to 'P�n.µs1ivanla Rul.¢ .of
:· Appellate.. Procedure 1'92S(a),
.· . the Court does 'hereby .. file tn,i$ Opinion ill
.suppore .of its· Order of May 21., ·2020 and directs the.Court to·the decisions.as
stated. on the.record as the p.la�e-wher�.th�reaso�:are found: . e,
:c1
·..:: ·?
�- ·•-•j C.1'
·i't�; .:)· I· -:�� e. ,�. . �
c.; •
•• ••• • r • .. t.U ��l..{a,
·!�'
·} .H,.� •.�;;-);: �-� ·:: : ?-£:',:-i;k),;}
r" •.
··-· -·-·-·-------·--,---------------------
.,...,..._'1•
,.
... .>
Appelta.ntf.F�ther -filed Notice .of Appeal, a Concise Statem�nt pf
M;att�rs .C'Statement"), and request for transcript on June 19� -.2020•.1 In.
response to ·Appefla:ntlFatl)er's Statement, the Court considered the credible
evidence presented at the hearing held on May 2,1?.:.202-0.; The.sole IssueBefere
the. Court.at the. de nova. hearing was medical rei111b��ement and the Court
'. .·
· found the· requestproper,
The. �vidence .presented by the Appelieellvl.otbe.r at the hearing was
uhcontroverted. Appellant/Father fail¢c:l contest the: validity of the . medical
. bills presented as ,eyh:ie1tce· .nor did h� contest the ··calculaiion of 111�dic�I
enforcement, Appeiian#Fath.er argued that he should not be· requited ta. p.at
.· the -�hihrs· . rn.�dic� expenses. as he did not agree with .. the child -r¢c.eiy.in� the
indicated treatments. He. further argued against the partie.�' current c,ustody
. {rgreerrien( entered as an order of-court on.June 27.s 2Ql9-;
I
App�lfant/F.ath�ri;nithHJy filed his ,Notice of Appeal on June l�, 2020 .()!} th�
·cust6df docket in Ille. Office of the York County Prothonotary ·and.th.en. fl,l�d
· another ·No.ti� of.Appeal .on June 1:9, '2'020. on the.suppcrt, docket in the
· · Domestic. Relations Section.
" '\.,. ·· .. ·.·-·-··.
The Statement nl�d by Ap.pellant/F.ather fa:fis.'to cogently artic:ula�� any
error �by the 'Court, The Superior Courthas pre\iio1:IS!Y heldJh:at "a Concise
Statement which is· too vague to allow the. court. to::Jdentify the issues -ra:ise9
on· -app�� is. the function�l equivalent, to .no. Concise Statement al all."
·c()mmo,jw.-eq?fh vi Dti!w.lz'l?r�, 778: .A.2d 683�. 686-8:1 ('.R.a. Super, 2001.)_. "APy'
. issues .not T�1se_4 in. .a 1925(b). statement will be, .deemed walved:"
Commonwealth:», Lord, 7 i:9 J\.24 30£t 3..09 (Pa. l"9.98); see .also Pa.R:.A:P.
1925.(b)(4)(vfi).;, :-CritninQ.nwea,lth'v.. :Schofield, 8�8 A.2d 1.·'tt 714 (Pa.. 2005.)
(stating th�t ·ih:e ",:faJIµr¢ to comply with the .mlnlmal requirements of l925(b)
wlll resnlr . ln =automatic· waiver of the issues raised:'.'}
It. .�ppears that the issues 'r.�ised In Apptllant/F�thei:':$'" Statement pertain.
ta },is· disp Ieasure with President JudgeAdems: s jiri9r decisions irrthe �u;stody ·
action reaching back to·.2.017,..µis current: dis·sati.sf�.tion 'with !}ie, stipulated
I • •
'
.
order for custody entered Jtµ1e'27� 20l9, and the. undersignedjudge's inability
to address bi� -�ofuplafuts: in the custody action .on de 1.1ovo review of the
supportactlon,
. . :
Therefore, ·we heiieve.the appeal
. .
should be quashed
. . :fpt failure
• 'toidentify an 'error by the-Court pursuant-to: l.925(b) or, .in the alternative, tl}e
3
...........- - - · - ----- .'-,---------------·-·--------------·--:---:--�----
.. \
Superior· Co�tt could find thatthe:is;ues have been waived, 2
=·FACTSAND PlmCEDJ]RAL}iI$.TQRY
An Order. was- eiitet�d on June 19,, 2Q.l9 :dir¢cting .,A:ppellee/Mother to
pay .sµpport. to. Appellant/Fatherfor the party's minor 'son, N.:n;+ The Order
was· entered Jn cQn·�_ideratjo.n .o(the split, custody arrangement 'of the par,:fe�t
:where.App;ell�t/Father has. c�stoay �f.N.D. for which Appellee/Mother owes
support was offsef -�y. Appellant/.Fathe.fs 6bligi1tiori to .Appellee/Mother for
M.D,. The other conditic>n.�. provision on ,pag� ?i. of the 0.tdet �peciµ,cQJIY,
... indicates that \�·psycJiologiq�l e'X';peqs�s are- iQ be 'includ� in medical split,"
2
S.S. V. T. J., ·z12:··A.3'd. ld26: (Pa.Super, 2019.), ptqv.}d�:
A. concise .statemeni of 'ettors ¢o�p1ain�d cff:oµ .. appeal must 'be
specific enough for the trial court to identify and aa.dre�s the. .issues
. the -appellant ·wishes to. raise ·on ·appeal.'' Co1.1:1.mqnwea/ih. v. .Re�ves,
9.07 . A.2d i, ·i (Pa. Super. 200.6) (qµoting Lineberger y. PJY.efh, '.894
A-2i,f 141, i48-. (Pa. Super. 2006)). Penn�ylv.apia. Rule cf'Appellate
Procedure 1925 .provides thar a Rtily. .19?5(q) statement ·".shall
condsely identify .eaoh ·ruliQg· (>�. :etre>.t.. that. the :app.e1lant .intends to
.challenge with -�ufficjent detail to iqeptify .allpertinerrt issues for the
judge/'· Pa·�.A�J>,: 19�5(b)(4)(.ii). "Issues not 'Included in the
:state�_�tit �d/or hot rais.e,d in aeecrdance. with. the. provisions-of-this
paragraph (b)(4) are· waiv.e.tpvid�d._to··i,1:,n. An .appellant waivesa claim of:e;tror o:q appeal wher¢ .the
appellanr provides only a b�d; assertion. of'error unsupported b.y-:oitatiqn to
. 1:egal.-aµth·6rity. Pa. R.A.:P. J925.(b){4)(ii)5;·
' . �·
.
Collins:v, Cooper, ·2000 PA Super
.22,. 74.6 A:�·(iij; 619 (Fa. Super: ;2.:0QOJ.
In this case, A.pp.ellant/Fath:et filed a Concise, Statement of Matters
.Wpicn provides o)lly·a numbered list-6f'"err.ors:n related to the custody action,
He,. fails to stat� ,a:iji cp!P}iiab.le error .by tbe:.C.o� .as..fr relates to ·tpe. .matter
which was :actu·i��y before, 'the. Court on May 2l, 2020.: Appellant/Father
.provided ho evidence .��t the medical bills- ...presented were. ·inv.a!id or .ip�rely·.
,
cosmetic .irrnature.. We submit. that.-A:pp�ll�J.)t/Fath�( has waived any viable
�laims: based upon..his faihll.e ·to' address refevanr �su� at the time of the
hearing, Furthermore, tqis Court requests that the Superier .court quash th.e
i:.92$.(�)(4)(ii): .. The Statement shall concisely identify each: .
,5 .. p�,' R.A;.P.
ruling 01� error ¢at:t4e appellantintends.to challenge.with ·suffideiit ·ci�taH to
identify-all pertinent issues for thejudge.
________ ,,
. -�-- . _
·-·-·'----------....--
--
.irrsjant appeal J,as�:& upon Appellant/Father'·S- failure to �otnply Pa . R.!A1P.
1"925�;)(4) forfailing tb, file -a concise statetnent,which."i4e;Qtifie.s: any error of
lawby the Conrt, In the even�·that the Superior Court does..norquash or ..find
Appellant/F.ather's Statement of Matters Complained .Qf.:"
Appellant/Father;s flrstissue alleges gender in�ru:-itivlfy and male bias
by th� C:pµrt. The Court acla1dwledg¢s stating: that Appe.IlanttF,at.her;-s
statementm tiµ; request for: de novo about b:eing "a strong' .male role model to
a, teenage boy· 'Vas 'taken · away by ·the court" was: lgel�vant to the is�u�s
befoteft.
The-record will- reflect that the c�uri was merely noting: that.argument
was not a ��is for excusing the· obligation of:App.ellaptlFather. At 'no time
.did the. Catut la�gh- .at or mock the ,Apptllarit!F.aiher=,, nor was. the Court
'sarcastic 'or d�gt.adihg 'toward Father er men in .general. Tp the contrary, the
Court, at �11-. times, vn&�g'�d. in a respectful exchange with, the parties in -an
effort to keep. .them focused on the_ Issue pending before the :Court� While
acknowledging the-· concerns expressed· by Father; we :patiently :�:tt�mpted 'to-
.r�djreqt Father to the- focus -of the proceedings..·Th� decision was based ·SJ>!ely
_____ .., ....:....;_ ;.._�_,,.
,·
._oh the ¢v:i.\:;l'ef,lc� before the. Court, which supported reimbursement to the
.parent that incurred-the ��pen.se, without regard to gender .
..App.ellant/:Fath,�fs second issue :dh appeal isthat he believes that the
undersigned-was. unprepared for the_ de novo :heiu-i'ng for medical enforcement ..
because we did not review three years: of orders- :an4··motJ�ns fsom thecustody
action." the·.:ortly matter :'.befor�. ·this: .Court, on May 21,. 2020 was. ·n'ledipc,11
enforcement for treatments received hy--,.:fytD.� from Jan'l;lary'3�· 20J9· through
December ai, 2019, therefore, the only relevant records, tothe :Proeeeding.
were the· support orders In -effect.at the·· 'time.the .expenses were iricurf.e,.ci, 'the
two, filings, for -medical' -enforcement, and the related. evidence -of incurred
medical expenses.. At the tittle of the he.�g,. A.�peI:1.ant/F�ther did no�
·chall,enge'-th.e: �uth�n.ti�ity -or validity .of the -111ed1caketpen,ses� hut argued that
_be,.did·,n_o± want.to beresponsible. for .tb�· Child�� expensesbecause-he -,dic;i_,rio�
.state. his consent, to- th.e· therapy treatments and medications ...
App¢1-latitfFa:thet,.s efforts to .rehash custody. issues resulted. ·ht his fa.ih.ir� to:
6.'The parties.have.been quite litig�Q�s 'in therelated custody .case, wit4 several
. orde�s entered by�stipulatio.n or after(c) inaica'.te.s. tp.at;psy�.t,.Qlq.gic� . .services arenot,
in�h.idec[wi:less·�pe_c;ifi�ly"direct�d.in. the· orderof.ceurt. �e--Qr-der for
support entered ..on June. 19, 2Ql9·:s_p.eci:q.cally _ptoy:ioes:en page· 3-:that
'�psych.g1-eal J?X��$.¢� �te to. b.e·:indlud:¢.Q m.medical split."
8 ·we note that.the
stipulation. wasentered 'by the parties theday prior to the·
scheduled cll$lQQy.':trfol d<1:t�:•. Both.parties ha.d: the· benefit .cf-eounsel in
eritetitjg :th:e agreement. Appellant/Father was-represented by Kristopher
Smull, Es.q\iir:'� and AppeJlee/Mo:therwas .represented }?y;D;a0d-'$ch�b�ch¢r , .
·.Es.quh·.e. 'Theprier-stipulated.erder from April 24, 20,l8., gave ·Mqth�t'ttie
. pr,hbary responsibility for making. any counseling and tperapeti,ti:9-.d�ci�19ns
�Nb.. .. -
l()
....,..-------�--�-�___:,----"'------'-----�
�-
..,.
Appel1-e.e/lv.fp¢er. is r�q�i��d to pa� the first .$250: each ··year for: .lv.LD.� · 'before
allocating the-tmrehnhqts¢4 expenses to the p�r'.ti�s. :th�n,.A_ppellant/Father ls·
'required -tQ:_pay his: proportionate· s.h�re ofthe medical �xpen.ses calculated at
· 42% for expenses incurred prior to June 9, 2019 -w.h�rf b.pL became
emancipated, arid ·at 46% for expenses 'incurred thereafter, ·The· remainder of
. the statement addresses i$St.1es · of custedy whi.c.p_ are. not 'properly raised in a
· su:pppft .hearing,
AgpellahtiFather's fourth statement on appear takes t�sti¢ with the
· undersigned · 'stating that he- ls "upset with the. custodial arrangement." The
Court acknowledges
..
:that was its interpretation of.t\ppe.U�n.t!Fi�.ther's
� feelings,
.
bu�. thestatement hadno 'bearing' on theultimate outcome-of t.h¢ case, Th�·
tdal .Qo\irt. ,&gree·S. with App.e.Uant/Father's. statement that "the custody
m;nm,g�niei)t: is essentially irrelevant,..
:iinall)\ . the, Court .suggests that. the. "Addiiion�l Background" portion. of
AppeHant!Fath�t,·�:,s:t:atern.ent should be. $tri.c�en. for failure tocomply with the
"concise statement" 'requirements or 192:5 (b). 9·
9
$ee Footnote 2·,,s�pra.
l'l
.. -- .. -- . ----,.-.---,
. ,.___ . --
· ·
............ ,----·--·-·-----------------------------------
,..�
·We·: 'respectfully request that that appeal be quashed ,.for f�il�r� to·
.attiorilafe. J111 error by the Court' .·and waiver of claims at- ·the· underlying
h��fin&; In: the event-that the $.�p�riqr Court i�: unwilling to quash the appeal
or find waiver, we: respectfully .request that Order · t,f ·May. ii:,. 2020 be
affirmed· f0.t ·the reasons stated therein.and.as. supplemented. by. the above,
A CQ.PY· of this, Opinion shall be served on. the patties ·itr accordance.
.. . .. the'. Iaw.
with ..
12
_;...;;._ -'- ....,.,...
;....;.___,.----,--:..,,-------:---- ·. .