W.B. v. K.S., W.B. v. K.S. No. 1782 MDA 2016

Parties divorced in 2011; they share one minor child, A.J.B. Father sought custody in 2011; the court awarded shared legal custody and primary physical custody to Mother in 2012.
Father filed a petition to modify custody on May 10, 2016; a custody hearing occurred August 10, 2016 and the parties reached a settlement read into the record.
The court entered a custody order reflecting the settlement on August 18, 2016.
Father filed a contempt petition on August 29, 2016, alleging Mother violated the August 18, 2016 custody order; a contempt hearing was held September 19, 2016.
The court denied the contempt petition on September 28, 2016; Father appealed pro se, filing a Rule 1925(b) statement contemporaneously.
The Superior Court found Father’s appellate brief materially noncompliant with Pa.R.A.P. requirements, concluded his issues were waived, and held any challenge to the custody order was not properly before the court because custody modification was not litigated with appropriate notice at the contempt hearing.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether Father preserved and properly presented appellate issues given his brief’s defects	Father asserted the contempt denial was erroneous and sought enforcement and, in his filings, requested custody as a remedy and later claimed coercion in agreeing to the custody order	Mother (and the court) argued Father’s brief failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P. rules (missing jurisdiction, questions presented, legal argument, etc.), preventing meaningful review	Court held Father’s briefing substantially deviated from appellate rules, resulting in waiver of appellate issues and affirmed the contempt denial
Whether custody could be modified or awarded as a sanction in the contempt proceeding without prior notice	Father argued for the first time at the contempt hearing that he was coerced into the custody agreement and requested custody modification as a sanction for contempt	Mother argued there was no notice that custody would be at issue in the contempt proceeding and that custody modification as a sanction requires prior notice	Court held custody cannot be permanently modified as a sanction in contempt proceedings without proper notice; Father failed to preserve a challenge to the custody order, so custody claims were not before the Superior Court

In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (pro se filings are liberally construed but pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules)
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate briefs must materially conform to Pa.R.A.P.; failure may lead to dismissal)
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 2005) (same principle on brief requirements)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 685 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Super. 1996) (lack of legal training does not excuse noncompliance with rules)
Langendorfer v. Spearman, 797 A.2d 303 (Pa. Super. 2002) (due process violation occurs if custody is modified as a contempt sanction without notice)
Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2000) (issues inadequately developed or briefed are waived)
Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (arguments not appropriately developed are waived)
Estate of Haiko v. McGinley, 799 A.2d 155 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellant must support questions with legal discussion or review is hampered)
Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Super. 1993) (statement of questions involved is critical for appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (failure to cite legal authority can result in waiver)
In Interest of K.L.S., 934 A.2d 1244 (Pa. 2007) (affirmance is appropriate when appellant fails to preserve issues for appeal)