Full Opinion

J-S25044-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 STEPHANY MARIE EDMONDS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JAHLIL OLAJUWAUN SMITH : : Appellant : No. 390 EDA 2026 Appeal from the Order Entered January 14, 2026 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations at No(s): 22-09321, PACSES: 930301873 BEFORE: SULLIVAN, J., BECK, J., and BENDER, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 20, 2026 Appellant, Jahlil Olajuwaun Smith (Father), appeals pro se from the January 14, 2026 order denying his motion for modification of an existing child support order. Father argues that defective service of the complaint for child support deprived the trial court of personal jurisdiction over him. After review, we affirm. The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this matter in its March 10, 2026 opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/10/26, at 1- 3. Briefly, this child support matter originated on December 16, 2022, when Stephany Marie Edmonds (Mother) filed a complaint seeking support for two minor children, J.O.A.S., who was born in September of 2012, and S.M.S., who was born in July of 2014. The parties attended a pre-trial conference on February 21, 2023, followed by a hearing before a Support Hearing Officer (SHO) on June 21, 2023. The SHO issued a proposed order on July 14, 2023, J-S25044-26 and a final support order for the children was entered on August 11, 2023. See id. On October 25, 2023, Father filed a petition to terminate support for both children. At the SHO hearing held on April 11, 2024, both parties appeared; however, Father declined to answer any questions concerning his income, assets, or expenses. The SHO recommended denying Father’s petition, and Father timely filed exceptions to the SHO’s proposed order. Following a hearing attended by both parties, the trial court denied Father’s exceptions on August 16, 2024. Father filed a petition for reconsideration, which the trial court denied on September 11, 2024. See id. Father subsequently filed a petition to modify or terminate support on November 10, 2025, and the trial court denied Father’s petition in an order filed on January 14, 2026. Father filed a motion for reconsideration on January 22, 2026, which the trial court likewise denied. Thereafter, Father filed a timely notice of appeal. Both the trial court and Father have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. See id. On appeal, Father presents the following issues: I. Whether the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction where the certified record contains no proof of service of original process? II. Whether the trial court erred in applying res judicata without jurisdiction? III. Whether [Father’s] due process rights were violated? Father’s Brief at 7 (some formatting altered). -2- J-S25044-26 At the outset, we observe that Father’s brief fails to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, which states that “[t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 2119. “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.” Norman for Est. of Shearlds v. Temple U. Health Sys., 208 A.3d 1115, 1118-19 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). Here, Father raises three issues in his statement of questions, see Father’s Brief at 7, but the argument section of Father’s brief is separated into six sections. See id. at 10-13. We note that compliance with our Rules of Appellate Procedure is mandatory and failure to comply may result in dismissal of the appeal. See Jacobs v. Jacobs, 884 A.2d 301, 305 (Pa. Super. 2005). However, because our appellate review is not precluded, we decline to dismiss the appeal on this basis. See id. Father’s issues rest entirely on his assertion that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction due to an alleged defect in the service of original process, and therefore, the court was powerless to enter any order or judgment against Father. See Father’s Brief at 10-13. While Father argues that he “repeatedly raised lack of service and lack of personal jurisdiction, including as early as 2023 and again during subsequent proceedings,” id. at 11, he fails to include any record citations supporting this claim. Therefore, Father has waived the -3- J-S25044-26 issue and no relief is due. See Commonwealth v. Harris, 979 A.2d 387, 393 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating “[w]hen an allegation is unsupported any citation to the record, such that this Court is prevented from assessing th[e] issue and determining whether error exists, the allegation is waived for purposes of appeal”); Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018) (providing that it is not this Court’s responsibility to scour the record to find documents that may support an appellant’s argument). In any event, objections to service of process and personal jurisdiction must be raised in preliminary objections filed within 20 days of service of the complaint, and the failure to file preliminary objections renders the challenge waived. Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001) (citing Pa.R.C.P. 1026, 1028, 1032(a)); see also Silver v. Thompson, 26 A.3d 514, 517, n.6 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating “[a] party who fails to object to service of process in preliminary objections waives that claim”). Father did not file preliminary objections. Thus, Father’s argument concerning service of process and personal jurisdiction is waived on this basis as well. See Wagner, 768 A.2d at 1119; Silver, 26 A.3d at 517, n.6. For the above reasons, we conclude that Father waived his challenge to service and personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Father’s motion for modification or termination of child support. Order affirmed. -4- J-S25044-26 Date: 10/20/2026 -5-