AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed July 25, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-01292-CV IN THE INTEREST OF H.A.F., F.A.F., AND M.T.A.F., CHILDREN, On Appeal from the 468th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 468-51752-2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia This case involves a final decree of di vorce dividing marital property, and awarding conservatorship, access and po ssession, and child support. Husband appears before us pro se. In a 1799 page br ief and appendix, Husband states twelve issues and several miscellaneous complain ts. Husband generally argues the trial court’s rulings pertaining to child support, possession, changed circumstances, the distribution of assets and debts, and a post-marital agreement are erroneous. Husband further complains about alleged bias and prejudice, arbitrary rulings, violation of his civil rights, and the inte grity of the trial judge, amicus and opposing counsel, witnesses, and Wife.–2– By Order dated October 5, 2023, we struck Husband’s brief for failure to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9 and 38, and ordered Husband to file an amended brief conforming with the rules. We cautioned Husband that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this appeal. Husband filed an amended brief, but the amended brief still does not co mply with the applicable rules. A civil litigant has the right to represent himself at trial and on appeal. See Bolling v. Farmers Branc h Indep. Sch. Dist ., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2010, no pet.). But the right of self-representation on appeal carries with it the duty to adhere to the ru les of appellate procedure. See id . Pro se appellants are held to the same standard as licensed attorneys. See Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co. , 126 S.W.3d 676, 677 (Tex. App.—D allas 2004, pet. denied); see also In re N.E.B ., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211–12 (Tex. App. —Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, we hold pr o se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comp ly with applicable laws and rules of procedure.”). Our rules of appellate pro cedure have specific requi rements for the contents of all briefs accepted by the courts. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38: Richardson v. Marsack , No. 05-18-00087-CV, 2018 WL 4474762, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 19, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (discussing specific re quirements for briefing). These briefing requirements are mandatory. M & E Endeavors LLC v. Air Voice Wireless LLC, Nos. 01-18-00852-CV, 01-19-00180 -CV, 2020 WL 5047902, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston–3– [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). Only afte r receiving adequate briefing may we go on to review the merits of the appeal. See Bolling , 315 S.W.3d at 895. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i) requires that an appellant’s brief “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made , with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(i). “This is not done by merely uttering brief conclusory stat ements, unsupported by legal citations.” Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc ., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied); see also Barham v. Turner Constr. Co. of Tex ., 803 S.W.2d 731, 740 (Tex. App.—Dal las 1990, writ denied) (appellant bears burden of discussing his assertions of error). The failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue or cite appropriate authority waives a complaint on appeal. Huey v. Huey , 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). Here, Husband does not provide the Court with appropriate argument, analysis, discussion, or citations to the r ecord relevant to his stated issues and miscellaneous complaints on appeal. The brie f is replete with conclusory statements and accusations. Conclusory statements uns upported by legal or record citations, however, do not satisfy the briefing requirement s, and “failure to provide substantive analysis will result in a waiver of complaints.” Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. Of Med ., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.—Houst on [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Husband provides numerous citations to lega l authority throughout the brief, but he fails to explain the purported application of that authority to this case. Husband–4– argues the trial court errone ously refused to admit certa in evidence, but offers no explanation as to why the evidence was admissible. 1 Likewise, Husband argues the court’s custody determination concerning the special needs child was not in the best interest of the child based on the “no cha nge of circumstances law”, but fails to explain that law or how it applies. Husba nd also argues the court failed to consider significant assets given to Wife post separa tion, but provides no record evidence to support this contention or otherwise suppor t his argument. His argument concerning and references to community and oversees de bts and income are similarly deficient. Indeed, all of Husband’s stated issues and miscellaneous complaints fail to present a cogent legal argument s upported by applicable author ities and citation to the record. We may not perform an independent revi ew of the record and applicable law to craft Husband’s allegations in to a coherent legal argument. Eco Planet, LLC v. ANT Trading, No. 05-19-00239-CV, 2020 WL 6707561, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op) (appellate courts are not responsible for identifying possible error or searching the record for facts favorable to a party’s position); Strange , 126 S.W.3d at 678 (appellate c ourt cannot remedy deficiencies in appellant’s brief for him). Moreover, we cannot speculate as to the substance of the specific issues appellant seeks to have us address. Id . To do so, would force this

1 Husband’s brief also refers to evidence that is not part of the record and fails to identify, with the appropriate record citations, where record ev idence was offered, objected to, or admitted.–5– court to stray from our role as a neutra l adjudicator and become an advocate for Husband. Jones v. Am. Real Estate Inv ., No. 05-19-00546-CV, 2020 WL 5834301, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Martinez v. El Paso County , 218 S.W.3d 841, 844 (Tex. App.—El Pa so 2007, pet. stricken). Even though we generally disfavor resolving an appeal for in adequate briefing, we hold that Husband has waived the issues and mi scellaneous complaints for his failure to comply with the applicable briefing rules. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

221292F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE–6– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF H.A.F., F.A.F., AND MT.A .F., CHILDREN, No. 05-22-01292-CV On Appeal from the 468th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 468-51752- 2020. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Reichek and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellee recover her costs of this appeal from appellant IN THE INTEREST OF H.A.F ., F.A.F., AND MT.A.F., CHILDREN.
Judgment entered this 25th day of July 2024.