Opinion
J-A20005-17 No. 426 MDA 2017
08-11-2017
E.E.H. v. C.D.H. APPEAL OF: E.E.H.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered February 9, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Civil Division at No(s): CI-13-01719 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, E.E.H. ("Father"), appeals from the order entered in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, which granted Appellee C.D.H. ("Mother") sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child ("Child") (born in 2008) and suspended Father's contact with Child. We affirm.
In its opinions filed February 9, 2017 and April 10, 2017, the trial court accurately set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Father raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE FACTORS CONTAINED IN 23 PA.C.S.A. § 5328 IN DETERMINING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD INVOLVED ARE MET BY SUSPENDING ALL CONTACT, EXCEPT MAIL, BETWEEN CHILD AND HER FATHER.
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A REASONABLE CONCLUSION [ON] THE PART OF THE [TRIAL] COURT THAT [FATHER] HAS CONDUCTED HIMSELF WITH HIS DAUGHTER IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CAUSE HER TO BE FEARFUL OF HIM TO THE DEGREE THAT CONTACT WOULD BE HARMFUL TO HER.(Father's Brief at 6).
In reviewing a child custody order:
[O]ur scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion. This Court must accept findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making independent factual determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the proceedings and thus viewed the witnesses first hand. However, we are not bound by the trial court's deductions or inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is whether the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record. We may reject the conclusions of the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.S.J.S. v. M.J.S., 76 A.3d 541, 547-48 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citation omitted).
As a preliminary matter, appellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. The rules of appellate procedure mandate that an appellant's brief shall consist of distinct components. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). See also Pa.R.A.P. 2114-2135 (addressing specific requirements for each subsection of brief on appeal). This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant's brief does not conform to the applicable rules. In re Ullman , 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 600, 20 A.3d 489 (2011).
Similarly, when an appellant fails to raise or develop his issues on appeal properly, or where his brief is wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, this Court can decline to address the appellant's claims on the merits. Butler v. Illes , 747 A.2d 943 (Pa.Super. 2000). See also Lackner v. Glosser , 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super. 2006) (explaining arguments must adhere to rules of appellate procedure and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived on appeal; arguments not appropriately developed include those where party has failed to cite authority in support of contention); Estate of Haiko v. McGinley , 799 A.2d 155 (Pa.Super. 2002) (stating appellant must support each question raised by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority; absent reasoned discussion of law in appellate brief, appellant hampers this Court's review and risks waiver on appeal).
Instantly, Father's brief fails to conform to the requirements of an appellate brief. Father presents two issues in his statement of questions presented but combines his issues into one argument section, in contravention of Rule 2119. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (stating: "The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at head of each part—in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed—particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent"). Father's entire brief is also single-spaced. See Pa.R.A.P. 124(a)(3) (explaining text of appellate brief must be double-spaced except for quotations more than two lines long and footnotes). Significantly, Father cites virtually no law to support his complaints on appeal, cites only two cases in his argument section, and discusses neither in any detail. Although he mentions the relevant custody statute ( see 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a)), Father fails to discuss the custody factors with any specificity and ignores certain factors which the court found particularly relevant. ( See Father's Brief at 14). The defects in Father's brief constitute waiver of his claims on appeal. See Lackner , supra ; Estate of Haiko , supra ; Butler , supra.
The court stated it found factors eight, nine, and fifteen particularly relevant. Father does not even mention factors eight and nine.
Moreover, even if Father had properly preserved his issues for our review, his claims would merit no relief. The opinions of the Honorable Leonard G. Brown, III, comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented. ( See Opinion in Support of Order, filed February 9, 2017, at 12-17) (examining each factor under applicable custody statute; concluding award of sole legal and physical custody of Child to Mother is in Child's best interest); and (Trial Court Opinion, filed April 10, 2017, at 16-18) (finding: (1) court heard multiple days of testimony and analyzed each of statutory factors under Section 5328(a); based on testimony and evidence presented, court found Father is unable at present time to form nurturing relationship with Child or care for Child's emotional needs; more troubling to court was extent and nature of Father's mental health; Father's psychologist conceded Father's personality disorder poses danger to Child's emotional wellbeing, Child should be older and more mature before relating with Father; (2) custody order permits Father to send cards and gifts to Child; but court awarded Mother sole physical custody of Child because Father suffers from personality disorder; any contact between Father and Child would burden Child significantly given her age, emotional state, and immaturity; both psychologists testified that even supervised custody would be detrimental to Child at this time; court's order allowed for reevaluation after Child's twelfth birthday, to determine if she can reunify with Father). If Father had properly preserved his claims, we would affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinions.
The record shows Child fears Father. Father wants Child to be Muslim and has held Child's head to the floor to make her pray. Father also drove fast with Child in the car before she was buckled properly, disapproved of Child's use of her left hand even though Child is left-handed, licked Child's face, doused Child in perfume she did not want to wear, and asked Child to spank Father with a toy bowling pin "harder and harder." --------
Order affirmed. Case is stricken from argument list. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/11/2017
Image materials not available for display.