|
|
|
|
Opinion filed April 13, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-05-00302-CV
__________
IN THE INTEREST OF D.R.B., a child
On Appeal from the 118th District Court
Howard County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 97-04-39065-CV
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, Kelly A. Brill, filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship requesting the trial court to appoint her as sole managing conservator of the parties= child and a motion to modify visitation. The trial court denied both requests. We affirm.
The parties were divorced in July of 1998. They had one child, D.R.B. Appellee, Billy W. Berry, was named sole managing conservator of that child following a jury trial. In 2002, appellant filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship requesting that she be appointed sole managing conservator of the child because of material and substantial changes in the circumstances of the child. Appellant later filed a motion to modify visitation requesting Texas standard visitation rights. The trial court denied both requests, found appellant in contempt for failure to pay child support, confirmed past-due child support of $2,363.89, and rendered judgment against appellant for this amount plus postjudgment interest.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and an affidavit of indigence. Appellee and the court reporter contested the affidavit of indigence. The trial court sustained their contests. Appellant does not challenge that holding.
Appellant does challenge the trial court=s rulings on her petition to modify the parent-child relationship and motion to modify visitation with five issues. Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion because the evidence established that the child was endangered while in appellee=s custody and that appellee was neglecting the child=s education, that the trial court failed to weigh all of the relevant factors to determine the best interest of the child, that the trial court erroneously allowed appellee to set the visitation schedule, and that the trial court failed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Appellant=s first four issues involve challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant has not filed a reporter=s record from the hearing. Without this, we cannot ascertain whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court=s judgment. Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Chatham, 899 S.W.2d 722, 735 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1995, writ dismissed.). Appellant is a pro se litigant, but she is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Holt v. F.F. Enters., 990 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 1998, pet. denied). In the absence of a reporter=s record, we are required by law to presume that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court=s findings. Smith v. Grace, 919 S.W.2d 673, 676 (Tex. App.CDallas 1996, writ denied). Appellant=s first four issues are overruled.
Appellant contends in her fifth issue that the trial court erred by not filing findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant, however, did not file a written request for findings and conclusions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 296 requires that a request be in writing and filed with the clerk of the trial court within twenty days after judgment is signed. Because appellant did not properly request findings and conclusions, we cannot say the trial court erred by not filing any. Appellant=s fifth issue is overruled.
We have considered and overruled each of appellant=s issues. The judgment of the trial court, therefore, is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
April 13, 2006
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.