AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed May 19, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-00135-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.J. AND K.S.J., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-07-03409

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

Shelley James appeals from the trial court’s Order in Suit to Modify the Parent-Child 

Relationship. Having concluded that appellant has failed to present and brief her complaint in 

accordance with the rules of appellate procedure, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Representing herself without an attorney, appellant filed her original brief on August 6, 

2013.1

 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.). Our appellate rules have specific 

briefing provisions that require appellant to state concisely her complaint, provide an 

understandable, succinct, and clear argument to support her contentions, and cite and apply 

relevant law together with appropriate record references. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (h), and (i); 

Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

 1 We granted appellant’s attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel on June 11, 2012. 
–2–

On August 19, 2013 we informed appellant by letter that her original brief was deficient 

in numerous respects. Those deficiencies included, but were not limited to the absence of: (1) a 

concise statement of the case, (2) a concise statement of all issues or points presented for review, 

(3) a concise statement of the facts supported by record references, (4) a succinct, clear, and 

accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief with appropriate citations to 

legal authority and the record, and (5) a short conclusion clearly stating the nature of the relief 

sought. Appellant filed a subsequent brief on August 29, 2013. 

Our review of appellant’s August 29 brief reveals that it does not identify any issues or 

points of error and contains no statement of facts or identifiable argument. In her “Summary of 

the Argument,” appellant complains she is indigent,

2 lost the income from her job, lost child 

support, and is unable to secure legal counsel to prepare an appellate brief. She also complains 

about the attorney who represented her in the trial court. She does not, however, identify any 

error in connection with the trial court’s twenty-two page order signed on January 27, 2012

which is the subject of this appeal. 

On pages seven through twenty-six of her brief, under the heading “Statement of the 

Case,” appellant has copied information from the “Case Summary” on pages 197 through 210 in 

the clerk’s record.3

 Finally, in an unidentified section of the brief on pages twenty-seven and 

twenty-eight, appellant generally concludes she should have been awarded full custody of the 

children. She also complains, without any legal analysis, citation to legal authority or record 

references, that the trial court disregarded various recommendations made by the children, their 

counselor, their attorney, and a social study. She concludes with a prayer that this court should 

reverse a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

 2 There is no finding or affidavit of appellant’s indigency in the record.

3 Some of the later entries in appellant’s brief are not on the “Case Summary” in our record. 
–3–

We are not required to sort through the record to find facts or research relevant law that

might support appellant’s position. See Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El 

Paso 2007, no pet.). Because appellant has failed to identify an issue for our review or 

adequately brief her position in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure, we affirm the 

trial court’s order.

 

120135F.P05

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.J. AND K.S.J., 

No. 05-12-00135-CV 

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-07-03409.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, 

Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellees Phillips James and the Office of the Attorney General of 

Texas, Child Support Division, recover their costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant Shelley 

James.

Judgment entered this 19th day of May, 2014.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE