Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Panella](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811799/hertzog-d-v-francisco-j/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Hertzog, D. v. Francisco, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1047 MDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Panella

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (10.9K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Jack A. Panella](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8243/jack-a-panella/)

J-A04006-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

DELANEY JESSICA HERTZOG : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JONATHAN FRANCISCO :
:
Appellant : No. 1047 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered June 10, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Domestic Relations at
No(s): 2023-00674,
PACSES 548302071

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 20, 2026

Jonathan Francisco (“Father”) appeals pro se from the order entered on

June 10, 2025, dismissing his appeal of the order dated April 14, 2025,

requiring him to pay $841.68 in child support to Delaney Jessica Hertzog

(“Mother”). After careful review, we affirm based on the well-reasoned opinion

of the trial court.

The following factual and procedural history were obtained from the

certified record. On April 21, 2023, Mother filed a complaint for child support.

On August 30, 2023, the court entered an interim order requiring Father to

pay $546.03 in child support, plus an additional $55.00 towards arrears, for a

total monthly amount of $601.03. Father sought to appeal the interim award

and a hearing was scheduled for November 7, 2023. On October 5, 2023, a

petition for contempt was filed requesting a hearing on Father’s failure to pay.
J-A04006-26

The court also scheduled the hearing on the contempt petition for November

7, 2023.

On November 7, 2023, the court held a de novo hearing on the interim

award of child support and the contempt petition. Father failed to appear. A

warrant was issued for his arrest and the court dismissed his appeal. On

November 9, 2023, the interim order was ratified as a final order of child

support. Father did not appeal this order.

After Father was arrested on the bench warrant the court held multiple

hearings regarding the contempt petition over the next year. Father made

sporadic payments throughout this year. Prior to a contempt hearing

scheduled for February 24, 2025, which had been continued from an earlier

date, Father filed a “Notice of Rescission of Contractual Obligation to Child

Support.” The court treated this as a petition to modify child support and

scheduled a modification conference for April 9, 2025.

After the conference, the conference officer recommended Father pay

$765.68 per month in child support and an additional $76.00 in arrears. The

court agreed and entered an interim order requiring Father to pay $841.68 a

month in child support on April 14, 2025. On May 5, 2025, Father filed a

request for a hearing de novo. The court scheduled the hearing for June 10,

2025.

The trial court explained what happened at the hearing as follows:

-2-
J-A04006-26

When [Father] filed his appeal on May 5, 2025, seeking a de novo
hearing, following a child support conference and resulting order
dated April 14, 2025, he stated as follows:

The Petitioner contests the recommendation for the
following reasons:

1 Imputed income calculations that are inaccurate or
unsupported;

2 Errors or omissions in material facts; and

3 Infringement of due process, including the inability
to meaningfully challenge evidence.

[Father’s] Request for Trial De Novo filed May 5, 2025. At the
hearing, [Father] did not provide any testimony or offer any
documents in support of items 1 and 2 above. More specifically,
despite being given at least 4 opportunities to do so, [Father]
refused to provide any information relative to the [alleged]
calculation errors made at the support conference and which
resulted in the April 14, 2025 order. See N.T. [Support Appeal
Hearing], 6/10/25, at 4, 9, 10, 12 (for opportunities the court
provided [Father]). [Father] insisted he could not proceed until
jurisdiction questions were answered, thus (when asked a fourth
time):1

THE COURT: … Do you want to answer my questions
about your earnings and what you’re able to earn and
are you working now and all of that or are you refusing
to do that?

[FATHER]: So once jurisdiction is questioned or
asserted, it must be established. And I can’t move
forward from that because then that puts me back into
a trap. So I can’t answer any of your questions until
we establish jurisdiction of the contractual binding
agreement.

Id. at 12:8-17. This exchange occurred after the court informed
[Father] that:

I find that the court does have jurisdiction … pursuant
to the rules promulgated by the Pennsylvania

-3-
J-A04006-26

Supreme Court. All the rules that we’re following
today are … the rules the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
and/or statutes that have been duly enacted and
passed by the legislature.

Id. at 4-5. Though [Father] did raise this issue of jurisdiction at
his hearing on June 10, 2025, that is, with respect to his third
reason for appealing the support order of April 14, 2025, he did
not proffer any documents or other evidence in support thereof.
Therefore, the court reaffirmed the support order without
modification.

1 [Father] refused to answer the court’s questions
even after it clearly informed [Father] that he could
both make jurisdictional and other procedural
objections, preserve those issues, and still answer the
court’s questions. See[,] e.g., N.T. [Support Appeal
Hearing], 6/10/25, at 11:17-13:3. Even with that
information, [Father] still refused to answer the
court’s questions. In this way, somewhat
paradoxically perhaps, [Father] filed an appeal but
refused to provide any information to support the very
claims he raised in his appeal document vis-à-vis
“imputed income calculations that are inaccurate or
unsupported” and of “errors or omissions in material
facts.” [Father’s] Request for Trial De Novo … filed
May 5, 2025.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/27/25, at 2-3 (unnecessary capitalization and brackets

omitted).

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court dismissed Father’s appeal

and ratified the current support order dated April 14, 2025. Father appealed

and complied with the court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Father now raises six issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by proceeding to adjudicate support and contempt without valid

-4-
J-A04006-26

service of original process or a Rule 1018.1 notice to defend, and
without proof of Pa.R.C.P. 236 notice[?]

1. Whether the court violated due process when [Father’s] first
   meaningful opportunity to be heard occurred after arrest for a
   rescheduled trial de novo of which [Father] had no notice[?]

2. Whether the court committed reversible error by threatening or
   imposing incarceration without findings of present ability to pay
   or alternatives, contrary to Turner v. Rogers[, 564 U.S. 431
   (2011)?]

3. Whether the court misapplied 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 4322 and
   Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-1 et seq. by entering an order without
   competent evidence of income or expenses[?]

4. Whether the court erred by claiming subject-matter jurisdiction
   based solely on an alleged residence, after [Father] den[ied]
   residence, thereby compromising judicial neutrality[?]

5. Whether proceedings conducted by administrative personnel
   lacking oaths or authority under Title IV-D violated due process
   where [Father] never applied for or received any IV-D services[?]

Appellant’s Brief, at 4-5 (unnecessary capitalization, emphasis, and suggested

answers omitted).

Preliminarily, we must determine whether Father has preserved his

claims for our review. Any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement is

waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). We recognize that Father is pro se, but

he is still bound by our rules. See S.S. v. T.J., 212 A.3d 1026, 1032 (Pa.

Super. 2019). We have previously stated:

[A]lthough 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.

-5-
J-A04006-26

Id. (citation omitted).

Construing both the appellate brief and Rule 1925(b) statement

liberally, Father has not preserved his fourth issue for our review. We

therefore find it waived.

Turning to Father’s remaining claims, we note that:

Our review of the trial court’s order is limited to determining
whether the trial court abused its discretion and whether there is
insufficient evidence to support the order.

When evaluating a child support order, this Court may only
reverse the trial court’s determination where the order cannot be
sustained on any valid ground. We will not interfere with the broad
discretion afforded the trial court absent an abuse of discretion or
insufficient evidence to sustain the support order. An abuse of
discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a
conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the
judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly
unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will,
discretion has been abused. In addition, we note that the duty to
support one’s child is absolute, and the purpose of child support
is to promote the child’s best interests.

T.M.W. v. N.J.W., 227 A.3d 940, 944 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations and

brackets omitted).

After reviewing the certified record, Father’s brief,1 applicable law, and

the Honorable Shawn P. McLaughlin’s thorough and cogent 12-page opinion,

we conclude Father’s issues do not entitle him to any relief. The trial court

provided Father multiple opportunities to address his income and earning

---

1 Mother did not file an appellee’s brief.

-6-
J-A04006-26

capacity and Father refused to cooperate. The trial court thoughtfully analyzed

all of Father’s issues:

• Father filed the petition to modify his support obligation and attended

the hearing on the petition to modify thereby negating any need for him

to be served with his own petition;

• Father appeared for the trial de novo and was given multiple

opportunities to be heard on his allegation that the child support

obligation was based on incorrect income calculations but refused to

answer the court’s questions;

• Father’s arrest “has no bearing in the instant child support appeal

claim,” “is not a factor in the guideline calculation process,” and this

appeal “is not the proper forum” to air out his grievances concerning an

alleged unlawful restraint;

• Father did not appeal a final order regarding contempt of court for failure

to pay; he appealed the dismissal of his appeal after a trial de novo;

• The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Mother’s claim for

child support in 2023 and a court will retain such jurisdiction over

modification requests;

• Title IV-D “has no application to the pending matter.”

See Trial Court Opinion, 8/27/25, at 4-11.

-7-
J-A04006-26

As such, we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned 12-page opinion of

the Honorable Shawn P. McLaughlin dated August 27, 2025, which we have

attached hereto for the convenience of the parties.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/20/2026

-8-