Affirmed; Opinion Filed October 29, 2020
In the
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00980-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.M.-C., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-21123
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Browning
Opinion by Justice Carlyle
Father appeals pro se from the trial court’s August 15, 2019 “Order Modifying
the Parent–Child Relationship,” which appoints Mother as the primary joint
managing conservator of their daughter, M.D.M.-C., and designates Father as a joint
managing conservator. We conclude Father has not presented and briefed his
complaints in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure. Thus, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
We hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require
them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. See Bolling v. Farmers
Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.);
Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet.
denied). Our appellate rules have specific briefing provisions that require an
appellant to provide an understandable, succinct, and clear argument to support his
contentions and cite and apply relevant law together with appropriate record
references. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; Strange, 126
S.W.3d at 678.
Father filed his original appellate brief on November 18, 2019. On November
27, 2019, we informed Father by letter that his original brief was deficient in certain
ways. The deficiencies included, among other things, the absence of (1) a complete
list of parties, (2) a concise statement of the case supported by record references,
(3) a concise statement of the facts supported by record references, (4) appropriate
citations to the record, (5) proper certificates of compliance and service, and
(6) relevant appendix documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (d), (g), (i), (k). We
instructed Father to file an amended brief that complied with the rules of appellate
procedure within ten days. In addition to the notice of specific deficiencies, our
notice advised Father that his failure to file a compliant amended brief, “may result
in dismissal of this appeal without further notice from the Court.” See TEX. R. APP.
P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). Father did not file an amended brief. We ordered the appeal
submitted on Father’s November 18, 2019 brief.
The “Table of Contents” in Father’s seven-page brief lists, with purported
page numbers, multiple items not in the brief, including “Identity of Parties,”
–2–
“Citation to Records,” and “Appendix.” Also, several of the “Authorities” Father
lists are not mentioned in the brief. The “Certificate of Service” states only that the
brief was electronically filed with this Court.
Father’s “Sole Issue”1 seems to assert the trial court abused its discretion by
appointing Mother, rather than him, as M.D.M.-C.’s primary joint managing
conservator. He contends, without record citation, that the trial court “overlooked”
certain “details,” including evidence at trial that “mom and grandmother [have]
denied him visitation” and he “has brought” M.D.M.-C. a long “way from where she
came from and was there to help her out.” But the brief’s argument section does not
explain—and we are unable to discern—how the evidence in the record warrants a
different result or how Father’s cited authorities support his position.
Father has the burden to present and discuss his assertions of error in
compliance with the appellate briefing rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Bolling,
315 S.W.3d at 895; Strange, 126 S.W.3d at 678. We have no right or obligation to
search through the record to find facts or research relevant law that might support an
1
Father’s “Sole Issue” states:
1. Whether the court review of the child support order from 2010, pro se State of Texas v.
Cecil Clayton. As it was altered by Whiteout.
2. Whether the court review the protective order filed by Amanda Turner in the year of
2017. Granted by 301st Associate Judge Andrew Ten Eyck.
3. Wheather the court review the case closed trail granting Father custody dismissed Judge
Mary
In the argument section of his brief, Father asserts (1) the trial court “abused its discretion in
ordering [Mother] final primary possession of the child” and (2) “[t]he question at hand is that why wasnt
the case evaluation review in the proper way that it should have been.”
–3–
appellant’s position, because doing so would “improperly transform this Court from
neutral adjudicators to advocates.” Chappell v. Allen, 414 S.W.3d 316, 321 (Tex.
App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.) (citing Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex.
App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.)). Because Father has not adequately briefed his
appellate complaints in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure, he presents
no issue for our review.
We affirm the trial court’s order.
/Cory L. Carlyle/
CORY L. CARLYLE
JUSTICE
190980F.P05
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.M.-C., On Appeal from the 301st Judicial
A CHILD District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-21123.
No. 05-19-00980-CV Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
Justices Molberg and Browning
participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 29th day of October, 2020.
–5–