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., CH ILDREN 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 She lley J ames appeals from the trial court’s Order in Suit to Modify the Paren t

- Child
R elationship

. Having concluded that appellant has failed to present and brief her complaint in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure , w e affirm the judgment of the trial court. Representing herself without an attorney, appellant filed h er 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, a nd cite and apply relevant law together with appropriate record references. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 includ ed, but were not limited to the absence of: (1) a concise statement of the case, (2) a concise state ment 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 authori ty and the record, and ( 5 ) a short conclusion clearly stat ing the nature of the relief sought. Appellant filed a subsequent brief on August 29, 2013

. Ou r review of appellant’s August 29 brief reveals that it does not identify any issues or points o f 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 fr om her job, lost child support, and is unable to secure legal counsel to prepare an appellate brief. S he also complains about the attorney who represented her in the trial court . She does not, however, identify any error in connection with the trial cour t’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 “C ase S ummary ” on pages 197 thro ugh 210 in the clerk’s record. 3 Finally, i n 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 b y the children, their counselor, their attorney, and a social study. She concludes with a prayer that this court should reverse a di strict court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

2 There is no finding or affidavit of appellant’s ind ig ency 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 t hat might support appellant’s position. See Valadez v. Avit i a , 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

– 

# S

Court of Appeals 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