Opinion
J-A07031-18 No. 1197 MDA 2017
05-08-2018
G.Y. v. M.O.Y. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered July 5, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Domestic Relations at No(s): 63 DR 2017, PACSES No. 223116333 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
M.O.Y. ("Father") appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Domestic Relations Division, directing that he pay child support. Herein, Father contends the court miscalculated his earning capacity by relying on outdated information and failed to give proper consideration to his obligations to support other his other children from other marriages. We affirm.
The trial court sets forth pertinent facts and procedural history as follows:
The parties, Mother G.E.Y. and Father M.O.Y., were married in June 2009, in Alberta, Canada and are the parents of a son who was born in Dauphin County in August 2009. The parties were not living together at the time of the child's birth and the child has always lived in Dauphin County with Mother while Father has primarily resided in Canada.
Father was born in Mauritania and initially came to the U.S. on a student visa in approximately 2004, attending a Master's degree program at Towson University. In early 2008, after he had completed his Master's Degree and because his student visa had expired or was expiring, he moved to Canada and eventually became a Canadian citizen. Father married his first wife around the time his student visa was expiring though they divorced soon thereafter.1 (Exbt. P-2). In October 2008, after Father left this country, a U.S. court issued a deportation order.
1 Mother's attorney suggested at the hearing that Father paid his first wife to marry him so he could stay in the U.S. Father denied this. (N.T. 37-38).
In 2012, Mother later initiated Dauphin County divorce proceedings and they were divorced by decree in May 2012. (No. 2012 CV 1109 DV). Around the same time, Mother initiated a Dauphin County custody action and the parties agreed by stipulation that Mother would maintain sole legal and primary physical custody of their son. Father was granted visitation rights as agreed by the parties. (No. 2012 CV 1954 CU). Following the divorce, Father married a Mauritanian woman. He claims to have three children with her (born between 2012 and 2016) who live with her in Mauritania. Father and his third wife separated in January 2016 and divorced sometime in 2016 or early 2017. (Exbt. DRO-1). He also claims to have fathered another child who lives in California and is currently around eleven years old. On April 7, 2017, Father married his fourth and current wife in Florida. (N.T. 48). His new wife is Mauritanian and is eighteen or nineteen years of age. (N.T. 48). She lives in New Jersey and holds U.S. permanent resident status (Green Card). (N.T. 41-42, 48, 65).
In late 2016 or early 2017, Father was granted a visa to enter the U.S. as a visitor, under which he can visit the U.S. for up to five years. In January 2017, Father entered the U.S. and made contact with Mother (N.T. 8; Exbt. P-1), who subsequently filed this current action seeking child support.
Following a Domestic Relations Section (DRS) conference, [the trial court] signed the order recommended by the conference officer, directing that effective January 17, 2017, Father pay child support of $551 per month plus $60 per month on arrears. In
arriving a the recommended amount, the conference officer assigned Mother a monthly net income of $4,595 based upon her gross annual salary of just over $70,000 working as an accountant. Father was assigned an earning capacity of $50,000 based upon his recent Canadian employment in database entry, a monthly net income of $3,205.
Based upon these figures, Father's support obligation for one child under the Support Guidelines was $503 per month. That figure was adjusted upward by $48, to $551 per month, to account for Father's proportional share (41%) of the child's monthly medical insurance cost ($116) paid by Mother. The conference officer rejected [Father's] claim that his child support should be reduced because he has four other children to support. Father filed a timely request for de novo review which was held before [the trial court on] July 5, 2017.2
2 The hearing was a dual hearing on Father's support appeal (see N.T. 7/5/17 at 60-73) as well as on his claim that Mother was in contempt of the parties' 2012 custody agreement for not allowing him to visit their son. (Id. at 1-60).
De Novo Hearing
Father is currently 41 or 44 years old.3 (N.T. 28-31). He testified that in 2016 he earned $43,124 gross income, in Canadian dollars, working in a database entry position. (N.T. 65, 66, 68). He claimed to have lost that job and later worked for a few weeks in a temporary job before moving to the U.S. at the beginning of 2017. (N.T. 65). He is currently unemployed though he claims he has applied for many jobs. (N.T. 69). According to Father, he is in the process of obtaining a visa that will permit him to work in the U.S. under NAFTA, so long as he has an agreement from an American employer that it will hire him.4 (N.T. 42). Father complained that his 2006 Master's Degree in computer science is outdated and that over the past ten years or so, he has been employed mostly as a taxi driver and security guard. (N.T. 66).
3 Father's date of birth is listed as January 1, 1973 on numerous official documents. He claimed, however, that the correct date is December 9, 1976, and that the incorrect date was initially
recorded upon his entry into the U.S. on his student visa and has been repeated on all subsequent official documents. (N.T. 28-31).
4 Father testified the visa that would permit him to do this is called an "MT visa." (N.T. 42) There does not appear to be such a visa. Father appears instead to be referring to a "TN visa." The TN visa was created under NAFTA and allows Canadian citizens to work in the U.S. in certain listed professional occupations, including computer systems, so long as the Canadian citizen has an offer of employment in the U.S[. . . .]
During the course of the hearing, Mother submitted into evidence copies of Father's LinkedIn page/account. (N.T. 41; Exbt. P-3 5). In them, Father recites his educational background including a 2004 Bachelor's Degree in Information Technology from Strayer University (Va.) and a 2006 Master's Degree in Computer Science from Towson University. (Exhbt. P-3). In addition, he attended the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) between 2015 and 2016 earning a Database Administrator Certificate. (Id.) He further lists his Canadian employment history as follows: database analyst/DBA with Mobile Maestria commencing April 2016 as well as database administrator with a series of entities between April 2007 and December 2014 including The World Bank Group—IMF, Shell, Kelly Services, Lordco Auto Parts and Soroc Technology. He also lists a past employment position of IT specialist with Time Business Machines from January 2009 to July 2009. (Id.)
5 Two versions of Father's LinkedIn account page were presented to [the trial] court at the hearing and are both identified as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3. They include identical detailed descriptions of Father's employment history and educational background. One version is an undated text only print-out while the other is a screenshot from the website and includes a photo of Father, other LinkedIn graphics as well as an identification of the website address and date of printing (June 23, 2017).
Father claimed that his new wife is totally dependent upon him, although he admitted that he was living with his wife's father as
of the hearing and that his wife's father is supporting both him and his new wife. (N.T. 68). Finally, he claimed that in addition to helping support his child with Mother here, he also supports his four other children.Trial Court Opinion, 9/27/17, at 1-4.
The DRS conference officer testified that he assigned Father an earning capacity of $50,000, based upon Father's recent earnings in Canada. (N.T. 61). The hearing officer also discussed the document Father provided at the initial conference, titled "Divorce and Child Support Agreement," dated January 30, 2017, submitted on the letterhead of the Mauritanian Embassy and translated from Arabic. (Exbt. DRO-1). The document states that on April 17, 2016, Father and his third wife agreed to divorce and that Father further agreed to pay her $1200 per month in U.S. dollars to support their three children. (Id.) the hearing officer testified that he doubted the legitimacy of the document inasmuch as it reflected Father's agreement to pay child support in U.S. dollars at a time he was living in Canada and his ex-wife was living in north Africa. (N.T. 63-64). He also did not consider two receipts submitted by Father after the conference allegedly showing he made some payments to his Mauritanian ex-wife, because they were not current. (Exbts. DRO-2, DRO-3).
Following the hearing, [the trial court] denied Father's de novo appeal by order issued July 5, 2017, and directed the order remain at $551 per month plus $60 per month on arrears.6 Father . . . filed an appeal to the Superior Court [on July 25, 2017].
6 Less than two weeks after [the trial court] issued [its] order denying his support appeal, Father filed a petition to modify support (dated July 18, 2017) claiming that he has no current income due to unemployment and has a low earning capacity. He attached some documents that he had not previously presented to the conference officer or the court including his ten-year income history from the Canada Revenue Agency and a Resume showing past employment history and educational background. The Domestic Relations Conference Officer held a conference on his petition, following which the officer recommended no change to the $551 per month order. A per curiam order was thereafter issued by [the trial court] August 8, 2017, dismissing the petition to modify. Father has requested de novo review from this most recent order which is pending.
On appeal, Father maintains the court set an erroneously high earning capacity and failed to account properly for his obligation to support four other children.
As a prefatory matter, we note:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially conform to the requirement 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. Id.; Commonwealth v. Lyons , 833 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2003). 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. Id. at 252. 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. Commonwealth v. Rivera , 454 Pa. Super. 451, 685 A.2d 1011 (1996).Commonwealth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005).
"Appellate arguments which fail to adhere to [the Rules of Appellate Procedure] may be considered waived, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived." Coulter v. Ramsden , 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2014). "[I]t is an appellant's duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with citations to legal authorities." In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012). "We will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. Moreover, when defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived." Id. at 674. See also Commonwealth v. Gould , 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding appellant waived issue on appeal where he failed to support claim with relevant citations to case law and record).
Instantly, Father's thee-page brief is woefully deficient. We initially note it lacks a statement of the questions involved, see Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) ("No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby."), and it fails to include a summary of the argument as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2118. Father's argument section, moreover, is bereft of a heading, is not divided into parts in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119, and, critically, presents an underdeveloped argument comprising factual claims rejected below as incredible and bare assertions of court error unsupported by citations to legal authority. See Appellant's Brief at 1-3 (unpaginated). Hence, we deem Father's issues waived for his failure to raise them adequately in his brief and advance them appropriately with meaningful arguments in compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Even if Father had properly advanced his claims, we would affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion. We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the opinion of the Honorable Jeannine Turgeon, Domestic Relations Section, filed on September 27, 2017. We conclude that Judge Turgeon's comprehensive, well-reasoned opinion correctly disposes of the issues presented by Father, and we would discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Turgeon's opinion as our own and affirm the July 5, 2017, order dismissing Father's request to reduce his child support obligation.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/8/2018
Image materials not available for display.