Affirmed; Opinion Filed October 29, 2020

In the

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 Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Browning

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Father appeals pro se from the trial court’s August 15, 2019 “Order Modifying

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 presented and briefed his 

complaints in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure. Thus, we affirm the 

trial court’s judgment in this memorandum opinion. See TEX. R. APP. 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 rules 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; Bolling, 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. The 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 certificates of compliance and service, and 

(6) relevant appendix documents. See TEX. R. APP. 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, our 

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 TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). Father did not file an amended brief. We ordered the appeal 

submitted on Father’s November 18, 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 “Appendix.” Also, several of the “Authorities” Father 

lists are not mentioned in the brief. The “Certificate of Service” states 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 “overlooked” 

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 authorities support his position. 

Father has the burden to present and discuss his assertions of error in 

compliance with the appellate briefing rules. See TEX. R. APP. 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 Whiteout.

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. Wheather the court review the case closed trail granting Father custody dismissed Judge 

Mary

In 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 it should have been.”
–4–

appellant’s position, because doing so would “improperly transform this Court 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 briefed 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

190980F.P05
–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.