Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00417-CV

In the Interest of M.A.B., a Child

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015EM504304

Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 26, 2017

AFFIRMED

Justin Russell Adcock appeals from a judgment establishing the parent-child relationship. 

In two issues, Adcock argues the trial court erred by not allowing him an opportunity to present 

his side of the case and by setting child support in excess of the amount allowed by the Texas 

Family Code. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On July 6, 2015, the Texas Office of the Attorney General filed a petition to establish the 

parent-child relationship between Adcock and M.A.B. Adcock was served with the petition and 

participated in court-ordered DNA testing, which showed that he was M.A.B.’s biological father. 

The case was set for trial on the merits on June 1, 2016. On June 1, 2016, Adcock filed a 

document stating that he was no longer a Texas resident, was residing in Ohio, and would be 
04-16-00417-CV

- 2 -

unable to appear for trial. Adcock also requested that the court “not order my physical appearance 

for any matters involving this case” and stated that “[i]f the court[] could please honor this [and] 

cease to continue with such orders” then he “would be more than happy to cooperate by any means 

which are available to me.”

On June 1, 2016, the trial court called the case for trial. Adcock failed to appear. The 

Attorney General presented evidence, consisting of the testimony of the child’s mother and the 

DNA testing results. The trial court rendered judgment establishing the parent-child relationship 

between Adcock and M.A.B., and ordering conservatorship, visitation, and retroactive, medical, 

and child support for M.A.B. Adcock appealed.

PROCEEDING TO TRIAL 

In his first issue, Adcock argues that the trial court “move[d] forward with a trial and 

subsequent judgment” without allowing him “any opportunity to present his side of the case or 

documents necessary to move forward with a fair and just ruling.” Adcock cites no cases or other 

authority to support his argument.

“The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require adequate briefing.” ERI Consulting 

Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 880 (Tex. 2010); In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d 

228, 235 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied). In particular, Rule 38.1(i) requires that an 

appellant’s brief contain clear and concise arguments with “appropriate citations to authorities and 

to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). An appellant who fails to satisfy these requirements waives 

the issue on appeal. Valdez, 406 S.W.3d at 235.

Because Adcock cites no cases or other authority to support his argument, his first issue is 

waived for inadequate briefing. See id. (concluding issue was waived when the appellant’s brief 

failed to contain clear and concise argument with appropriate citation to authorities and to the 

record).
04-16-00417-CV

- 3 -

CHILD SUPPORT AMOUNT

In his second issue, Adcock argues the trial court violated chapter 154 of the Texas Family 

Code by setting the amount of child support in excess of the amount allowed by statute. In its 

judgment, the trial court ordered Adcock to pay child support in the amount of $220.00 per month 

beginning June 1, 2016. 

Section 154.125(b) of the Texas Family Code provides that when the obligor’s monthly 

net resources are not greater than $7500.00, the court shall set child support for one child at 20% 

of the obligor’s monthly net resources. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.125(b) (West Supp. 2016). 

Section 154.068 of the Texas Family Code provides that in the absence of evidence of a party’s 

resources, the court shall presume that the party has income equal to the federal minimum wage 

for a 40-hour week. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.068(a) (West Supp. 2016). 

At trial, the only evidence of Adcock’s resources was the testimony of M.A.B.’s mother, 

who said that she did not have much information about Adcock, that the minimum wage 

presumption would have to be used to set the child support amount, and that Adcock had no other

children besides M.A.B. The record indicates that the trial court used the minimum wage 

presumption to determine Adcock’s monthly net resources and applied 20% to this amount to 

calculate Adcock’s monthly child support obligation. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.068(a), 

154.125(b). We conclude the child support ordered by the trial court did not violate chapter 154 of 

the Texas Family Code.1 We overrule Adcock’s second issue.

 1

In addition, the trial court ordered Adcock to pay cash medical support in the amount of $30.00 per month, granted a 

judgment against Adcock for retroactive child support in the amount of $ 5,500.00, and ordered Adcock to pay the 

judgment by paying $100.00 per month. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.181(a) (West 2014) (requiring trial courts 

to set medical support); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.009(a) (West 2014) (allowing trial courts to set retroactive child 

support); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.636(g),(h) (West Supp. 2016) (allowing trial courts, on a finding of parentage, 

to order retroactive child support as provided by Chapter 154).
04-16-00417-CV

- 4 -

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Karen Angelini, Justice