Opinion
J-A02028-18 No. 1250 WDA 2017
01-18-2018
D.D. v. C.T. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Dated July 14, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at No(s): FD13-004954-009 BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.:
Appellant, C.T. (Mother), appeals from the July 14, 2017 order that denied Mother's relocation to North Carolina with the five-year-old daughter she parents with D.D. (Father). After careful review, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal.
Generally, appellate briefs are required to conform to the Rules of Appellant Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. "This Court may ... dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure." In re Ullman , 995 A.2d 1207, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011). Our rules require that the statement of questions involved "must state concisely the issues to resolved" and the argument section of an appellant's brief shall include "such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent." Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), 2119(a).
In this case, Mother appears to allege that the trial court erred in treating this matter as a relocation case and, furthermore, incorrectly determined that Father possessed custody rights with respect to the couple's child. See Mother's Brief at 1, 5. However, Mother's statement of questions involved is incoherent and her one-page argument contains nothing more than conclusory assertions, without any development or explanation as to why or how the trial court erred. It is axiomatic that this Court will not consider issues where the appellant has not developed her contentions in any meaningful way. In re Estate of Whitley , 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 69 A.3d 303 (Pa. 2013). Furthermore, "[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant." Commonwealth v. Kane , 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011).
Based on the foregoing, we are compelled to conclude that the defects in Mother's brief are substantial and preclude this Court from conducting any meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion pursuant to Rule 2101 and dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/18/2018