Opinion
No. 05-04-00761-CV
Opinion Filed August 12, 2005.
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 380-52510-02.
Affirmed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, FRANCIS, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Audrey Evans, acting pro se, appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to modify/clarify the order granting grandparent access. Evans fails to identify issues for this Court's consideration regarding the order. We affirm the trial court's order.
Background
Based on a mediated settlement between Audrey Evans, the grandmother, and Julie Kay Duncan, the mother, the trial court entered a final order granting grandparent access on February 14, 2003. The order granted supervised visits to Evans. On January 29, 2004, Evans filed a motion to modify the order, asking among other things, that she be allowed unsupervised visits with her grandchildren. The trial court denied this motion on April 12, 2004. Evans filed a timely appeal.
Requirements for Appellate Briefing
The rules of appellate procedure require an appellant's brief to "state concisely all issues or points presented for review." Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(e). Additionally, appellate procedure rules require appellant's brief to "contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities. . . . ." Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(h). Although we must "construe the rules of appellate procedure `reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appeal is not lost by imposing requirements not absolutely necessary to effect the purpose of the rule,'" we cannot remedy deficiencies in a litigant's biref. See Green v. Kaposta, 152 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); Jordan v. Jefferson County, 153 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004, pet. denied) (citing Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004). We must remain neutral and cannot become an advocate for a particular litigant by performing their research and developing their argument for them or perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether the error complained of occurred. See Green, 152 S.W.3d at 841; Jordan, 153 S.W3d at 676.
Appellant's Brief
Because her first brief did not satisfy the requirements for appellate briefing, this Court instructed Evans to file an amended brief. Nevertheless, her amended brief does not identify issues presented for review, nor does she provide concise arguments with appropriate citations to authorities. Instead, she provides a narrative of circumstances before and after the trial court's ruling on April 12, 2004. Evans has failed to bring any issue for our review regarding the trial court's denial of her motion to modify grandparent access.
She also states that by letter, dated June 3, 2004, she was informed that Duncan intended to remarry and to move to another location. In light of this change of circumstances, Evans asks this Court for another hearing about her access to her grandchildren and asks this Court to allow her to have "unsupervised longer visits with her grandchildren." However, motions to modify an order providing for access to a child must be submitted to a court with continuing and exclusive jurisdiction. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.001 (Vernon 2002). This Court is without authority to grant Evans's request for relief. Accordingly, we deny her request for relief.
To the extent Evans complains about the award of attorney's fees, she does not challenge opposing counsel's evidence regarding attorney's fees and makes no argument supporting any complaint she may have regarding the attorney's fee. We conclude she has waived any issue she may have regarding attorney fees.
Conclusion
Without issues for our review and supporting argument, we overrule Evan's request for relief. We affirm the trial court's April 12, 2004 "order on motion to modify/clarify the order granting grandparent access."