A ffirmed; Opinion Filed October 29, 2020

In t he 

### 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 Justice s Molberg, Carlyle , and Browning

Opinion by Justice Carlyle
F ather appeals pro se from the trial court ’ s August 15, 2019 “ Order Modify ing 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 present ed and brief ed his complaints in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure . Thus, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment in this memorandum opinion

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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.);– 2

–

Strange v. Cont ’ l Cas. Co ., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Our appellate r ules 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1; Bo lling , 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 . Th e 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 certificate s of compliance and service, and (6) relevant appendix documents

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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, o ur 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). F ather did not file an amended brief. We ordered the appeal submitted on Father ’ s November 1 8 , 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, ”– 3

–

“ Citation to Records, ” and “ A ppendix. ” Also, several of the “ A uthorities ” Father lists are not mentioned in the brief

. The “ Certificate of Service ” s tates 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 “ over looked ” 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 authorit ies s upport his position. Father has the burden to present and discuss his assertions of error in compliance with the appellate briefing rules. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 W hiteout. 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. Whe a ther the court review the case closed trail granting Father custody dismissed Judge Mary
I n 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 i t should have been. ”– 4

–

appellant ’ s position , because doing so would “ improperly transform this Cou rt 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 brief ed 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

190980 F

. P 05– 5

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.M.

- C., A CHILD
No. 05

- 19

- 00980

- CV On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 09

- 21123. 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.