Rehak, R. v. Rehak, K.

J-A05029-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
RICHARD H. REHAK, JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
KIMBERLY L. REHAK :
:
Appellant : No. 1897 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 13, 2022,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,
Civil Division at No(s): 2019-27893.
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2023
Kimberly L. Rehak ("Mother") appeals from the order denying her
petition to modify custody of the parties’ four children: J.T. age 17, Jax age
14, Adam age 10 and Annie age 5. Mother filed the petition on February 14,
2022, only four months after the parties entered an agreed order on October
12, 2021, during which Mother was represented by counsel. We dismiss the
appeal.
As the trial court noted, this family has been in “crisis mode” for the last
few years, with extensive litigation throughout 2020 and 2021. T.C.O.
12/7/22, at 1. In a psychological evaluation, performed by an agreed upon
evaluator, Mother was diagnosed with “delusional disorder,” a serious mental
illness which manifests itself such that a person cannot discern what is real
J-A05029-23
from what is imagined.1 Id. at 2. The trial court has devoted significant time
and resources, including the enlistment of mental health professionals and a
guardian ad litem for the minor children, to ensure their well-being and best
interests. Id.
The trial court provided a detailed account of the litigation between the
parties to ensure that this Court appreciated the complex and intricate nature
of this custody case. We need not repeat that lengthy history here. By way
of brief background, over the last three years, the parties appeared for more
than 10 hearings on contempt petitions, petitions for protection from abuse,2
and modification of custody before at least three different trial court judges in
Montgomery County. The trial court held Mother in contempt three times and
found that she “continues to demonstrate a lack of respect for and an
unwillingness to comply with Court Orders.” Id. at 8, n.24.
The older two children, JT and Jax, have primarily resided with Jonathan
and Ashley Stunkard ("Maternal Uncle and Aunt”) since May 2021.3 The
____________________________________________
1 The record does not indicate that Mother is incapacitated, such that a
guardian should be appointed to protect her legal interests. However, we
caution the trial court to be mindful of this possibility in the event of future
litigation. See Pa.R.C.P. 2056.
2 All of Mother’s protection from abuse petitions, as well as her numerous
reports to child protective services against Father, were unfounded. T.C.O.
12/7/22, at 6, n.2.
3 These two children were adopted by Father; their biological father is
deceased. This custody arrangement was agreed to following attempts by
Mother to alienate the older children against Father. The younger two children
are Father’s biological children.
-2-
J-A05029-23
younger two children, Adam and Annie, have resided primarily with Father
since April 2021. Since the entry of the April 23, 2021 Order, Mother has
specified time periods of supervised custody with all four children.
In her latest petition to modify custody, Mother sought to remove the
supervision requirement of her custody time with the children. The custody
conciliator recommended that the agreed upon order of October 21, 2021
remain the same, i.e., that the supervision remain in place. Following a
hearing, the trial court issued a nine page memorandum and order denying
Mother’s petition. Mother appealed. In her concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal, Mother listed 18 points of error on four single-spaced
typed pages. Her appeal was initially dismissed for failure to order and pay
for the transcript. Ultimately, the appeal was reinstated and the court issued
its 1925(a) opinion.
In her appellate brief Mother identifies four issues:
1. Were [Mother’s] rights violated in relation to the custody of the
minor children involved under 23 Pa. Code § 5328 (a)(2), in
failing to consider the extensive [abuse] of [Father] in raising
the minor children?
2. Were [Mother’s] rights violated in relation to the custody of the
minor children involved under 23 Pa. Code § 5328 (a)(7), in
failing to consider the preferences of the children?
3. Were [Mother’s] rights violated in relation to the custody of
the minor children involved under 23 Pa. Code § 5328(a)(8), in failing to consider the previous domestic violence
of the [Father]?
-3-
J-A05029-23
4. Were [Mother’s] rights violated to the custody of the minor
children involved under 23 Pa. Code § 5428 (a)(9) is
unconscionably considering the use of [Mother’s] physical
and mental health issues against her?
Mother’s Brief at 3-4.
Before we address Mother’s substantive issues, we note that Mother did
not list any of these issues in her concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal.
This Court has previously determined that:
issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed
waived for review. An appellant’s concise statement must properly
specify the error to be addressed on appeal. In other words, the
Rule 1925(b) statement must be specific enough for the trial court
to identify and address the issue an appellant wishes to raise on
appeal.
A concise statement which is too vague to allow the court to
identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of
no concise statement at all. The court's review and legal analysis
can be fatally impaired when the court must guess at the issues
raised. Thus, if a concise statement is too vague, the court may
find waiver.
Commonwealth v. Scott, 212 A.3d 1094, 1112 (Pa. Super. 2019) ((internal
citations, quotations and brackets omitted).
Here, the trial court determined that Mother's Rule 1925(b) statement
was vague instead of concise and, therefore, the court was unable to make
any meaningful review of the errors she complained of. As a result, the court
suggested that Mother waived all her appellate issues. T.C.O. 12/7/11 at 24-
25. We agree. The trial court was not able to review or discuss any of the
four specific errors Mother now lists in her appellate brief. Because we have
-4-
J-A05029-23
no trial court opinion on these issues, there is nothing for us to review; we
dismiss Mother’s appeal on this basis.
Even if Mother had identified these four issues in her concise statement,
she fails to develop any meaningful argument on appeal. Our standard and
scope of review in custody cases are as follows:
We review a trial court's determination in a custody case for
an abuse of discretion, and our scope of review is broad. Because
we cannot make independent factual determinations, we must
accept the findings of the trial court that are supported by the
evidence. We defer to the trial judge regarding credibility and the
weight of the evidence. The trial judge's deductions or inferences
from its factual findings, however, do not bind this Court. We may
reject the trial court's conclusions only if they involve an error of
law or are unreasonable in light of its factual findings.
L.L.B. v. T.R.B., 283 A.3d 859, 862–63 (Pa. Super. 2022) citing S.W.D. v.
S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014).
Here, Mother makes no argument that the trial court abused its
discretion in keeping the supervision requirement of her partial custody in
place. Moreover, she fails to cite any case law to support her claims of error.
For these reasons, we may dismiss her appeal outright. In re W.H., 25 A.3d
330, 339 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“where an appellate brief fails to provide any
discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the
issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is
waived.”); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (argument section of appellate brief
shall contain discussion of issues raised therein and citation to pertinent legal
authorities).
-5-
J-A05029-23
Instead, Mother baldly asserts that the trial court erroneously failed to
consider her allegations of abuse and domestic violence. She also claims the
court did not consider the children’s preferences and that the court used her
mental health issues against her. Even if we considered these arguments, we
would summarily reject them. First, they do not indicate an abuse of
discretion. Moreover, the court properly considered the history of the parties,
including the safety of the children and Mother’s mental health, in keeping the
supervision requirement of her custody in place. As the court observed,
Mother continues to try to do everything she can to
undermine the therapeutic process. Mother even went so far as to
report [the court-ordered therapist] to professional licensing
authorities in an attempt to derail the therapy. Her lack of
compliance with all of the numerous previous orders pertaining to
counseling (including the parties agreed Order of October 2021,
directing this therapy to continue), clearly demonstrates that
there has been absolutely no improvement in her behavior on this
important point. Furthermore, her actions to obstruct therapy
continue to be contrary to the best interests of the children.
T.C.O. at 27. Additionally, the court noted concerns that Mother still believes
she is being tracked by the former chief operating officer of Facebook, that
the government has implanted a device in her eye in order to track her, and
that she is still convinced that Father is a Satanist. Id. at 28-30.
In sum, Mother has waived her issues on appeal for failure to include
them in her concise statement of issues on appeal, and for failure to develop
any meaningful argument on appeal. Moreover, even if the issues were not
waived, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in keeping the supervision
requirement of her custody in place.
-6-
J-A05029-23
Appeal dismissed. Oral argument scheduled for March 1, 2023,
canceled.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/14/2023
-7-