829 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.); Huber v. Agnew, No. 05-16-00963-CV, 2017 WL 2464681, at *1-2 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 7, 2017, no pet.)(mem. op.)); see also In re C.J., 689 S.W.3d at 422. On this basis, we conclude the evidence is sufficient and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by reducing Father's time of possession with M.C.M.
Id. Accordingly, in this case we must presume that the omitted portions of the reporter's record are both relevant and support the trial court's judgment. See $4,310 in U.S. Currency, 133 S.W.3d at 829; Huber v. Agnew, No. 05-16-00963-CV, 2017 WL 2464681, at *1-2 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 7, 2017, no pet.)(mem. op.). For either or both of these reasons, we overrule Shrime's third issue.
Complete failure to file a statement of points or issues, however, negates the completeness presumption, creates a new presumption that the omitted portions support the trial court judgment, and requires the appellate court to affirm the trial court's judgment. See Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam); Huber v. Agnew, No. 05-16-00963, 2017 WL 2464681 at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 7, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). Here, Father did not file a complete record on appeal, nor did he ever file a statement of the points or issues that he intended to present on appeal as rule 34.6(c)(1) requires.