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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 P.R.D. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : K.H. : No. 869 MDA 2020 Appeal from the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

...........- - - · - ----- .'-,---------------·-·--------------·--:---:--�---- .. \

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," 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.<V' Pa.R;t\.P. J 92·5 (b).(4)(viiJ See.. also ·Gommqr,iw.e.altb.'y; Lopata, 754 A;2(J. 68.5.,, qS:9 (Pa. Super ..20:00) {st�dng. that- :i'[a] ,claim which has. not been raised before the trial court .catwot be raisedfor' the first time on appeal")•.

.,·· •.-·,,,,... ·---··-· -------· .·,

The custodial parent was entitled to a proportionate .-shtp-e of unreimbursed medical exj?.ens·e.s ·tiiat exceed '$is.o per year_. The, Order .directed 46% ·tber�after :paid by· Appe:llarit/.Fath�t .ati'd s4�·to )\ppelltelMotner. The OrdeF was nofa,ppeaied--andboth partieswererepresented by counsel. the. p.a:die� entered 'inro a .stipulation for custedy ��foh was incorporated intoan order of court'on J.1,1ne 27, 4.019-..:The ieustody·stipulation1 inier alia, granted power to. in�e- .tn'ajqr, decisions: tega.tdin$ -mental 'health treatments, for M.,P. to Appellee/Mother and power to- make 'major decisions regarding mental health treatments for his· sibling, N.I)., to Father;' On January .27, 2020 and iv.fwch 16_� 20"20 Appellee/Mother flied requests for-- medical enforcemep;t for all.medical expenses . incurred onbehalf ofM.p;. in2.0.19., 'including mental health treatment. ,A.·c,o.pference. was held on· March ·2·0� tQ;lO,·and an Order was en.rereci by 'the · Domestic Relations Section.

of York ·County 4ir�cting_ Appellanti'Father to--re�hu:rs�, A:ppeilee/Mother for p.is share' _pf the medical costs. App.e.llant/Fathet. timely filed a request for

A.lthoµgh $pp�llant!Fath.�r has filed. two prior appeals in ·the custody.marten; each W$.S 4u�heci, andneitherwas challenging the-custody. OrderenteredJune 27,,20'.19.�

.... ·.-•... ·-·-----�- ·4earing denovo on April. 8,;-,20.2.0., Indicating, in part, that h:� did not believe. · he: should. 'be. responsible 'for M.D.. 's 'expenses for which he "hadno say in: n A. hearing was scheduled �efor� this Court. on Mat �J,.. 2020. Ort .that · cl.ate,.·both .parties appeared by Alternative Coi1:1Jnuritc.ation·-rechnolqgy (ACT) an:·¢ ·ij 'n.e:�lng was' held on the record," At tb.e time of the hearing, Appelfant!Fatlret 'indicated that he <ljd, not agree wlth M.D. receiving treatment :and "psyohotropic. medication", ·:st.a:ting. "I .didn t agree tQ this

counsellng," and sought to- argue against the terms of the stipulated custody order: This ·Qsnpt_r�p¢at�oiy infonn¢d �ppe.llant/Father that: we were unable to address eustody matters during .a support he;aring and thatthe .only matter before the.Court. was. medlcal.rehnbatsernent . ·. . . . .. . . . . •. . . . Court . . ·The· . dictated. � its decision ·in the Orderentered on that date.

Appe1Iantz'f.)1tli:er filed' his .Notice of Appeal° and Concise ,St�tement of Matters and �qu�$t (orttariscriptpi) June. l9, 2020 onthe support docket Pursuant �- the R-e.nnsylvani:a Supreme. Court directive, the York '.County ·court pJ.itc.h�cl licenses to permit participation in non-emergency matters by : alten)�ti.v�. CQflm}:uni.cation technology,, namely Zoom video. _.con_£e;encing.

B.o_th parties timely participated .in the proceeding: and �<$tional time; was .afforded to Appellant. to .appropriately connect to the ·nea;riqg So h,�· c9µlc;t participate.

:DI$CUSSION 0n, appeal A.pp.elI-anr/Father raises. clams of bias by two. York County 'Common PJe.$ judges; th�. Mrm·.tn�t the. ousto.dy order has ·allege4}y caused ttj .his three. children, .and.his gisagt�.et.l;lef\t; wjfu the .merttaJ_ health treatment p>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<ahe.aririg. The·Qoarf�-�s:·etit¢re4 orders · :.addressing.custoµi�i rights on Jun; 19, 2047.,_'Septembe� 11_, 2017_, Aprit24; �l'b_:t�,, Qotob¢r··2-3.,.-Z.0'18and Jun�_-i.1: 20.1'9, Eather did.fil� anappeal.cf the June ·12.;.io17 order· that was subsequently withdxawti.. · 9.

. . ,. ·. -���- • '

present relevant evidence to support that.' the medieal :rejtpJmrsement for.

M.1):is·-menta:I health treatmentwas improper or that any of the treatments or medical oilt_s were· cosmetic. or.-otf.terWis� unnec¢�sary.1-. ·:·

Uponreview of the stipulated orderfdr custody enteredin the matter docketed to 2.Q f-5-FC-0()0166.,03:, the parties agreed that the .power to make major .decisions regarding M.b.� would lie with-Appeltee/Mothet·ru:rd:powerto- make :m�Jor decisions regarding ..NJ)� to would lie. with Father/ The remainder' of the statement.addresses issuee -oteusfody Wlµeh �f.e: .no:t. :P,r6.jY�f.ly- raisedin a $�j.1port' hearing,.

. AppellantlFather�s tli.i�4 fs�u� .on appeal 'asserts that this--, Court directed him to P,ay '-"'all medical expenses for his .son, ,,. This. is .not. the. correct.

1. Pa; R:,aG.P. . .19.1.0::16--(>(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<il<>.g1-eal J?X��$.¢� �te to. b.e·:indlud:¢.Q m.medical split." ·we note that.the stipulation. wasentered 'by the parties theday prior to the· scheduled cll$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·

$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 ..

_;...;;._ -'- ....,.,... ;....;.___,.----,--:..,,-------:---- ·. .