There is no recor d of a pr ior support and c ustody order reg ardingthese two c hildren. 1 C O U R T O F A P P E A LS

EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N THE I NTEREST OF T.A . AND M.A., MI NOR CHI L DREN § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 02 70 -C V

Appea l from the 388th J udicial District Court of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2006CM2442)

O P I N I O N Dr. Raf ael Ar mendar iz i s the biologic al father of T .A. and M.A. H e appe als an a war d for child support, medical e x penses, a rre ara g es, and attorney ’s fe es in favor of Gloria T roncoso, the children’ s mother. Dr. Armenda riz raises seve n issues addre ssing a ll aspects of the trial court’ s
awa rd. We aff

irm This suit bega

n as an a ction to establish the pater nity of T.A. a nd M.A., by

the childre n’s mother, Gloria T roncoso. Ms. Tronc oso filed the orig inal petition on April 11, 2006, alleg ing Dr. Raf ael Ar mendar iz was the biologica l father of the c hildren. Dr. Ar

mendar iz fil ed a g ener al 1 denial on May

10, 2006. The trial c ourt enter ed interim pate rnity order s on Dec ember

8, 2006. The orde r desig nated Ms. Tronc oso and Dr. Armenda riz as joint m anag ing c onservators and named Ms. Tronc oso the primary conser vator with the right to designate the childre n’s re sidence
. The c ourt also orde red D r. Arme ndariz to pay $1,240 per month for

child support, commencing Dec ember

10, 2006.We do not have the be nefit of a n Appellee ’s brief

in this case. 2 -2- On Ap ri l 13 , 2 00 7, Ms. Tr on c os o ame nd e d h e r p e tit ion to i nc lud e c la ims fo r c hil d
su pp or t, m e dic a l e xpe ns e s, and

arr e ara g e . O n Jun e 20 , 2 00 7, Dr . A rm e nd ari z am e nd e d h is
ans we r a nd a dmi tte d h e wa s th e bio log ic a l f athe r o f t he c hil dr e n, but c onte ste d h is o bli g atio n to pa y re tr oa c tiv e c hil d s up po rt . T he c a se wa s tr ie d to the c ourt on July 18 , 2 00 7. Th e on ly witnesses to testify

reg ardingthe child support and a rre ara g e issues we re D r. Arme ndariz and Ms. Troncoso. The fina l judgment in the c ase w as sig ned De cembe r 20, 2007. The judg ment obligates Dr . A rm e nd ari z to p ay

$1 ,6 00 pe r m onth f

or c hil d s up po rt

and $2 88 pe r m onth f

or he a lth
cover ag e. Dr . Armenda

riz was also found to be in ar rea rs for c hild support in the amount of $76,800 and orde red to pa y in increme nts of $400 per month until paid in full. The trial cour t de te rm ine d th e re wa s a

$1 3, 82 4 a

rr e ara g e fo r h e a lthc are c ov e ra g e . D r. Ar me nd ari z wa s a lso order ed to pay

an additional $100 per

month until the hea lth care arr ear ag e wa s paid in full. F ina lly , D r. Ar

me nd ari z wa s o rd e re d to pa y $5 ,3 00 fo r M s. Tr on c os o’ s atto rn e y ’s fe e s. Dr. Ar mendar iz presents seven issues for revie w in his brief. I ssues One a nd Two addre ss the trial court’ s arr ear ag e aw ard. I ssues Thre e and F ive contend that the trial court e rre d by not taking into ac count evidenc e of f inancial ha

rdship and other

circ umstances while se tting the support and medic al expenses obligations. I ssue Four challeng es the attorney ’s fe es aw ard. I ssue Six addre sses the trial cour t’s failure to file finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law. I ssue Se ve n b ro a dly

a sse rt s th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s d isc re tio n “ in d e te rm ini ngpa st c hil d s up po rt , p a st medical support, c urre nt child support, curre nt medical support, and a war d of attorne y

fee s.” 2 As a pre liminary

matter, having r eviewe d Dr. Ar mendar iz’s brief, we c onclude that I ssues-3-

On e thr ou g h F ive and

I ssu e Se ve n h ave no t be e n p ro pe rl y br ie fe d a nd so pr e se nt n oth ingfo r t

his Court to review. Te x as Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 38.1 pr ovides the re quirements of a n appellant’ s brief. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.1. Of particula r intere st in thi s case is subparagraph ( i) of Rul e 38 .1 , whic h s tate s: “ Argument . The brie f must contain a c lear and conc ise argument for the contentions made, w ith appropriate citations to authorities and to the re cord.” T EX .R.A PP .P. 38 .1 (i ). B ri e fi ngre qu ir e me nts are no t me t by an a pp e lla nt m e re ly utt e ri ngc on c lus or

y state me nts , unsupported by

leg al citations. Ratsavong v. M enev ilay , 176 S.W .3d 661, 666 (Tex.App.-- El Pa so 20 05 , p e t. d e nie d) . F a ilure to b ri e f a n is su e in c omp lia

nc e wi th R

ule 38 .1 re su lts in waiver of that issue. Se e id
. The e ntire ar gument section of Dr . Armenda riz’s brief c onsists of seven, sing le spac ed pa g e s. Withthe e xce pti on of I ssu e Six, th e br ie f f

a ils to c ite to a

sin g le Te xas C ourt

of Ap pe a ls or Texas Supreme Court opinion, and except for intermittent quotations from severa l sections of the Texas Fa

mily Code, fails to cite a

ppropriate statutory

authority . The discussion of I ssues One throug h Five a

nd I ssue Seven, is wholly lackingin citation to the rec ord and f ails to provide the Court with any

leg al ana ly sis on which we c ould base a decision g rantingthe re lief re quested. Acc ording ly , these issues ar e over ruled a s waived. I ssue Six challeng es the trial c ourt’s fa ilure to enter finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law pursua

nt to Section 154.130 of the Texas Family Code. Dr. Ar

mendar iz s tates in his brief that a wr itten reque st for finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law wa s filed with the trial cour t on September 6, 2007. H e also states that a notice of past due finding s was filed on Septe mber 11, 2007. Howeve r, while the r ecor d does conta in a re quest for f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law on September

6, that reque st was explicitl y made pur suant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedur e-4-

296. Dr. Ar

mendar iz fails to cite to a point in t he re cord where a re quest for Sec tion 154.130 f i n d i n g s w a s m a d e . T h e r e f o r e th e tr i a l c o urtd i d

n o te r r i nf a i l i n gt o m ak e s u c hf

i n d i n g s . In addition, although D r. Arme ndariz states that a notice of past due f indings wa s filed on September 11, 2007, that document states only that it is a “reque st for finding s of fa cts and conclusions.” The re is no re cord that Dr. Arme ndariz notified the cour t of any past due finding s. I ssue Six is overrule d. Havingoverr

uled all of Appe llant’s issues, we a ffirm the judg ment below.
September 9, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J, M c C l ur e , an d R i v e r a , JJ.