Humphrey, A. v. Young, I.

J-A12029-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ABDUL-RAHEEM HUMPHREY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
IJNANYA YOUNG : No. 3145 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered November 21, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations
at No(s): 0C1800639
BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED MAY 2, 2023
Appellant Abdul-Raheem Humphrey (Father) purports to appeal pro se
from the September 1, 2022 order granting him supervised partial physical
custody and granting Appellee Ijnanya Young (Mother) sole legal and primary
physical custody of their minor child N.H. (Child), the September 1, 2022 order
holding Father in contempt, and the November 21, 2022 denying Father’s
various custody-related petitions. Also before this Court are Mother’s
applications to dismiss the appeal and for an extension of time to file a brief.
For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal and dismiss Mother’s
application for an extension of time to file a brief as moot.
The underlying facts and procedural history are well known to the
parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 1/23/23, at 1-11 (unpaginated). Briefly, on
September 1, 2022, after a hearing, the trial court entered a custody order
granting Mother sole legal and primary physical custody of Child and granting
J-A12029-23
Father supervised partial physical custody of Child. That same day, the trial
court entered an order holding Father in contempt of the trial court’s January
5, 2022 custody order and ordered Father to pay Mother $500 as a sanction.
Father did not file a notice of appeal from either of these orders at that time.
Subsequently on November 3, 2022, Father filed a pro se petition for
contempt. The following day, Father filed a pro se petition to modify custody
and a pro se petition for emergency relief. Following a hearing on November
18, 2022, the trial court entered an order on November 21, 2022, denying
Father’s petitions and ordering that the September 1, 2022 custody order
remains in effect.
On December 13, 2022,1 Father filed a notice of appeal purporting to
appeal from the September 1, 2022 custody order, the September 1, 2022
contempt order, and the November 21, 2022 custody order. Father
subsequently filed a court ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement.2 The
____________________________________________
1 Both the trial court and Mother state that Father filed his notice of appeal on
December 18, 2022. See Trial Ct. Op. at 9, 13 (unpaginated); Mother’s App.
to Dismiss at 1 (unpaginated). Our review of the record indicates that Father
filed his notice of appeal on December 13, 2022, which is the same date the
trial court issued its Rule 1925(b) order. See Notice of Appeal, 12/13/22;
Trial Ct. Order, 12/13/22.
2 In a children’s fast track appeal, “[t]he concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal shall be filed and served with the notice of appeal
required by Rule 905.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). However, we decline to find
waiver on this basis as Father’s late filing of his Rule 1925(b) concise
statement does not run contrary to an order of this Court or of the trial court,
and no party had raised any allegation of prejudice. See In re K.T.E.L., 983
A.2d 745, 747-48 (Pa. Super. 2009).
-2-
J-A12029-23
trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion concluding that Father’s appeal from
the September 1, 2022 orders was untimely filed, and also addressed Father’s
claims on the merits. See Trial Ct. Op. at 12-13, 16-21 (unpaginated).
Before reaching the merits of Father’s appellate issues, we must address
Mother’s application to dismiss the appeal with respect to the trial court’s
September 1, 2022 orders. Mother argues that this Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear Father’s appeal from those orders because the appeal was
untimely filed. Mother’s App. to Dismiss at 1-2 (unpaginated); see also Trial
Ct. Op. at 12-13.
It is well established that “the timeliness of an appeal implicates our
jurisdiction[.]” Krankowski v. O’Neil, 928 A.2d 284, 285 (Pa. Super. 2007)
(citation omitted)). In order to be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed
within thirty days after entry of the appealable order. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); see
also Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1) (stating that the date of entry of an order is the day
the clerk of court mails copies of the order to the parties). Rule of Appellate
Procedure 341 provides, in relevant part, “an appeal may be taken as of right
from any final order of a government unit or trial court.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(a).
This Court has explained that “a custody order will be considered final and
appealable only if it is both: 1) entered after the court has completed its
hearings on the merits; and 2) intended by the court to constitute a complete
resolution of the custody claims pending between the parties.” Kassam v.
Kassam, 811 A.2d 1023, 1027 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted and
formatting altered). Also, “a finding of contempt is final and appealable when
-3-
J-A12029-23
a sanction is imposed.” J.M. v. K.W., 164 A.3d 1260, 1264 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(en banc) (citation omitted).
Here, Father filed a single notice of appeal on December 13, 2022,
purporting to appeal from three different orders: two entered on September
1, 2022 and the third entered on November 21, 2022.3 Our review of the
record indicates that the trial court’s September 1, 2022 custody order was a
final and appealable order because it was entered after the hearing, and it
resolved all pending custody claims. Kassam, 811 A.2d at 1027. Further,
the September 1, 2022 contempt order was final because it imposed a
sanction of $500 payable to Mother. See J.M., 164 A.3d at 1264. Father filed
his notice of appeal 103 days after these orders were entered, therefore
Father’s appeal is patently untimely with respect to the September 1, 2022
orders. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). For these reasons, we grant Mother’s
application and dismiss Father’s appeal insofar as Father appealed from the
trial court’s September 1, 2022 orders.
Concerning the November 21, 2022 custody order, we note that Father
has filed a brief in which he argues that he and Child were denied due process
and that the trial court’s order violates various state and federal statutes
____________________________________________
3 We note that our Supreme Court has explained that generally, “[t]aking one
appeal from separate judgments is not acceptable practice and is discouraged.
It has been held that a single appeal is incapable of bringing on for review
more than one final order . . . .” Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. Aetna Cas. &
Sur. Co., 263 A.2d 448, 452 (Pa. 1970). However, given our disposition of
Mother’s application to dismiss, the defect in Father’s notice of appeal
regarding multiple orders is moot.
-4-
J-A12029-23
related to protection from abuse. Father’s Brief at 1-3. Father also asserts
that he was wrongfully arrested for kidnapping Child, and that the charges
were subsequently amended to interference with custody of children and
concealment of whereabouts of a child4 in connection with this custody matter.
Id. at 2.
Before addressing Father’s claims insofar as they relate to the November
21, 2022 custody order, we must consider whether Father complied with the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. This issue is a pure question of
law for which “our scope of review is plenary[,] and the standard of review is
de novo.” Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969, 974 (Pa. 2018),
overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa.
2021). It is well settled that appellate briefs must conform to the
requirements set forth in the appellate rules. In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207,
1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted). Further, if the defects in an
appellant’s brief “are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be quashed
or dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
The Rules set forth specific requirements for the required content of an
appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Among other things, briefs must
contain a statement of jurisdiction, statement of both the scope of review and
the standard of review, statement of the questions involved, statement of the
____________________________________________
4 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2904(a) and 2909(a), respectively.
-5-
J-A12029-23
case, summary of argument, argument section, and a short conclusion stating
the precise relief sought. See id.
Further, this Court has explained that an appellant’s pro se status does
not relieve them of their duty to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008).
“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.” Ullman,
995 A.2d at 1211-12 (citations omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel
and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” U.S. Bank, N.A.
v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386, 394 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted).
Here, Father has filed a three-page brief in which he raises a generalized
claim that the trial court’s order violated his and Child’s due process rights
and various state and federal laws. Father’s Brief at 1-3. However, although
Father attached the trial court’s opinion to his brief, Father has otherwise failed
to meet any of the requirements for an appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(1), (3)-(6), (8)-(9). Further, Father has failed to develop his claim
in any meaningful fashion or provide any basis for why this Court should
reverse the trial court’s November 21, 2022 order. See Pautenis, 118 A.3d
at 394.
Under these circumstances, and given the substantial defects in Father’s
brief, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of Father’s claims insofar
as they relate to the trial court’s November 21, 2022 custody order. For these
-6-
J-A12029-23
reasons, we are constrained to dismiss Father’s appeal of the November 21,
2022 custody order.5,6 See Pa.R.A.P. 2101; Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211-12.
Appeal dismissed. Oral argument cancelled. Mother’s application to
dismiss appeal granted. Mother’s application for an extension of time to file a
brief dismissed as moot. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/2/2023
____________________________________________
5 Because we dismiss Father’s appeal, Mother’s application for an extension of
time to file an appellate brief is moot.
6 In any event, even if we were to address whether the trial court abused its
discretion in denying Father’s custody-related petitions, we would affirm on
the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 19-21 (unpaginated).
-7-