Court Opinion

ID: 9876536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 06:08:17.845873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:09.653960
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed September 20, 2023

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00022-CV

                   IN THE INTEREST OF T.B.S., A CHILD

               On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-19030

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Goldstein, Garcia, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Garcia
      Following a hearing on Father’s application for a writ of habeas corpus and

Mother’s motion to modify, the trial court entered an order finding, among other

things, that the parties are not coparenting, have demonstrated a continuing pattern

of an inability to put the child first or communicate effectively, and have each

wrongfully withheld the child from the other. The court ordered the parties to take

or retake a coparenting class and further ordered that neither party may go to the

child’s school when the other party is beginning possession. Father was enjoined

from going to or within 100 yards of Mother’s home or work.

      Father, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s order. As we discern

his issue(s), he appears to challenge the injunctive aspect of the order as violating
the Texas Constitution, the Texas Family Code, and the rules of evidence and

procedure, among other things. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

      We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, we hold pro se

litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with

applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d

181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair

advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Shull v. United Parcel Serv.,

4 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). The law is well

established that, to present an issue to this Court, a party’s brief shall contain, among

other things, a concise, nonargumentative statement of the facts of the case,

supported by record references, and a clear and concise argument for the contentions

made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1;

McIntyre v. Wilson, 50 S.W.3d 674, 682 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied); see

also Richardson v. Marsack, No. 05-18-00087-CV, 2018 WL 4474762, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Sept. 19, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). When a party fails to adequately

brief a complaint, he waives the issue on appeal. Devine v. Dallas County, 130

S.W.3d 512, 514 (Tex. App. —Dallas 2004, no pet.); see also See Sullivan v. Bickel

& Brewer, 943 S.W.2d 477, 486 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, writ denied) (bare

assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive error).

      Father filed an amended brief after we ordered him to do so, but his amended

brief is no more coherent than the first. It is the appealing party’s burden to discuss

                                          –2–
his assertions of error, and the appellate court has “no duty—or even right—to

perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine

whether there was error.” Bullock v. Am. Heart Ass’n, 360 S.W.3d 661, 665 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2012, pet. denied); see also Smartt v. City of Laredo, 239 S.W.3d 869,

872 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. denied) (stating the appellant is obligated

to explain his contentions and “cannot leave it up to us to develop it”). Any attempt

to discern Father’s issue(s) would be tantamount to making his arguments for him.

See Tello v. Bank One, N.A., 218 S.W.3d 109, 116 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2007, no pet.).

      Even though we generally disfavor resolving an appeal on inadequate

briefing, because Father did not comply with TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, his issue(s)

present nothing for our review. The trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                            /Dennise Garcia/
                                            DENNISE GARCIA
                                            JUSTICE

230022F.P05

                                         –3–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF T.B.S., A                  On Appeal from the 301st Judicial
CHILD                                         District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-23-00022-CV                            Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-19030.
                                              Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
                                              Justices Goldstein and Miskel
                                              participating.

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is
AFFIRMED.

      It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered September 20, 2023.

                                        –4–