Gosselin v. Gosselin: PA docket shows the children have a Guardian ad Litem, and Kate filed an appeal past the deadline resulting in its denial

The public record docket, linked to us by one of the lovely ladies here, shows some interesting information.

• The best news of all is that at least one of the children, and hopefully all of them, are now listed as having a Guardian ad Litem, family law attorney Lauren Marks, who is a party to the case and invited to respond to any motions or requests. Marks' bio reveals she's a Penn State grad with experience as a public defender as well as experience as a GAL in "highly litigious" cases. She seems to be over qualified for this post! 
• Kate filed an appeal of an order in May three days late, to which the Courts asked her to "show cause" (I.e. explain) why the appeal should be heard. On June 14, they "quashed" the appeal due to her tardiness, which means she can no longer appeal. 
• The filing fee to file Kate's appeal was $90.50. Not to mention attorneys fees, of course.
• A briefing schedule is in place, which basically means deadlines to turn in your documents, with a brief due Monday July 9 for Kate. It's unclear what the briefing relates to.

The full docket can be viewed here.

June 4, 2018

Comment:

Per Curiam Appellant, K.I.G., defendant below, filed a notice of appeal from the final
custody order entered April 5, 2018. Appellant's notice of appeal was docketed below on May 8, 2018.
An appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order from
which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). This Court has no jurisdiction to excuse the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Valley Forge Center Associates v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245 (Pa. Super. 1997); see also Pa.R.A.P. 105(b) (an appellate court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal).
Accordingly, Appellant is hereby directed to show cause, within ten days of the date of this order, as to why this appeal should not be quashed as having been filed untimely on May 8, 2018, thirty-three days after entry of the subject order. Failure to respond to this directive may result in quashal of this appeal without further notice.

June 14, 2018
Comment:

DOCKET ENTRY
Docket Entry / Representing Participant Type Response to Rule to Show Cause
Appellant
Quash Sua Sponte
Per Curiam Through this Court's June 4, 2018 Order, Appellant was directed to show
cause why the appeal should not be quashed as untimely. Appellant filed a response on June 11, 2018, but did not present legal argument to justify this Court's jurisdiction. An appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). This Court has no jurisdiction to excuse the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Valley Forge Center Associates v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245 (Pa. Super.
1997); see also Pa.R.A.P. 105(b) (an appellate court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal). Because the notice of appeal was filed on May 8, 2018, more than 30 days after the entry of the April 5, 2018 order, the appeal is hereby QUASHED.
Appellant's request for leave to file a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc is DENIED without prejudice to Appellant's ability to seek relief in the trial court.