Opinion
01-23-00765-CV
01-09-2024
In the Interest of C.C. aka C.C., a Child
313th District Court of Harris County, Trial court case number: 2022-00988J
ORDER
SARAH BETH LANDAU, JUDGE.
On January 4,2024, appellant W.-C.X.H. filed her appellant's brief in the above-referenced cause. The brief presents four issues:
(1) Whether the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support termination of [W.-C.X.H.'s] parental rights under [Tex. Fam. Code] § 161.001(b)(1)(D).
(2) Whether the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support termination of [W.-C.X.H.'s] parental rights under [Tex. Fam. Code] § 161.001(b)(1)(O).
(3) Whether the evidence established by a preponderance of the evidence that [W.-C.X.H.] was unable to complete services pursuant to [Tex. Fam. Code] § 161.001(d).
(4) Whether the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support termination of parental rights under [Tex. Fam. Code] § 161.001(b)(2).
Although the appellant's brief directs the Court's attention to these alleged errors and sets out the statutory standards for termination of parental rights as to each of the challenged findings, the appellant's brief does not contain appropriate citations to legal authorities under the "Analysis and Argument" portions of the brief.
For instance, at page 33 of the appellant's brief, appellant W.-C.X.H. argues in her first issue that:
The challenge is to "knowingly" based on the mindset of [W.-C.X.H.] [under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D)], who may have been suffering from a "likely post-partum psychosis." While [W.-C.X.H.] has been criminally charged, she is on deferred adjudication for endangering her child. And because no medical records, assessments nor therapy notes have been offered into evidence by an expert who has worked with [W.-C.X.H.], arguably, there is only insufficient evidence to support termination pursuant to ground D. The only knowledge and insight into [W.-C.X.H.'s] mental state contained in the record are the conclusory statements of the CPS caseworker and the statements made in the Removal Affidavit by the CPI/CPS investigator.(See Appellant's Brief at 33) But the brief does not contain any legal citations for these contentions. The same is true for the other "Analysis and Argument" portions of the brief.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. l(i) requires the appellant's brief to "contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record." TEX. R. App. P. 38.1(i). This requirement is not satisfied by merely uttering brief conclusory statements unsupported by legal citations. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App-Houston [lstDist] 2002, pet. denied).
Accordingly, the Court requests that appellant W.-C.X.H. file an amended appellant's brief containing appropriate legal citations to support the contentions made in her "Analysis and Argument." The amended appellant's brief is due on or before Friday, January 12, 2024.
It is so ORDERED.