Opinion
05-22-00545-CV
07-07-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF O.T.F. AND R.A.T., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-14-06650
Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
Mother, representing herself pro se, appeals the trial court's June 7, 2022 Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship (2022 Order). We affirm the order.
Background
Mother filed a petition to modify a June 8, 2018 Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship (2018 Order), which designated Father the sole managing conservator of his and Mother's minor children, O.T.F. and R.A.T. Among other things, Mother sought to be appointed the sole managing conservator, with the right to designate the primary residence of the children without regard to geographic location. Mother also filed a motion for the trial court to confer with the children to determine each child's wishes as to conservatorship, possession, access and who should have the exclusive right to determine the child's residency. Father filed a counterpetition. He sought to remain sole managing conservator of the children and to continue, or expand, the existing restrictions on Mother's possession of and access to the children. He also sought confirmation of child support and medical support arrearages owed by Mother and for the trial court to order Mother to pay additional monthly child support.
The trial court held a bench trial in March 2022. After the parties rested, the trial court took the case under advisement and interviewed the children. The trial court also held a "report back" hearing, during which the guardian ad litem reported on her visit with the children in Father's home to determine if there were any concerns.
In May 2022, the trial court issued a Memorandum Ruling. According to the ruling, the trial court found that, based on the testimony and evidence from the March 2022 trial, the trial court's interview with the children, and input from the ad litem, there had not been a substantial and material change in circumstances with the children or parents that warranted a modification in conservatorship, possession, and access to the children or child support. The trial court ordered, among other things, that Father remain sole managing conservator and Mother remain possessory conservator and that Mother continue to pay child support as previously ordered and post a bond into the court's registry before she could exercise possession. The trial court also confirmed the child and medical support arrearage and ordered a payout. Thereafter, the trial court signed, consistent with its ruling, the 2022 Order. This appeal followed.
After Mother filed her brief, the Court informed her that the brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure. The Court's January 9, 2023 notice advised that the brief was deficient because it did not contain, among other things, a clear and concise statement of her argument with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(I). The court cautioned that failure to file an amended brief within ten days could result in her appeal being dismissed without further notice. on January 17, 2023, mother filed an amended brief, but she did not amend her argument to include citations to authorities and the record.
Thereafter, the Court determined that the reporter's record was incomplete. The appeal was abated and, on June 7, 2023, the court reporter filed a supplemental reporter's record. By order dated June 7, 2023, the Court reinstated the appeal and set a June 27, 2023 deadline for appellant to file an amended brief. On June 27, 2023, Mother filed an amended brief. The amended brief, however, appears to be identical to Mother's January 17, 2023 amended brief.
Analysis
We liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs, but we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211-12 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing 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 litigants represented by counsel. Id. at 212.
Mother appeals the trial court's exclusion, or failure to consider, evidence. However, an appellant's brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(I); In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212. An appellant that fails to adequately brief a complaint waives the complaint on appeal. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212 ("Bare assertions of error, without argument or authority, waive error."). Mother's briefing in this appeal does not provide the Court with argument, analysis, or authorities that make her appellate complaint viable. Accordingly, she has waived our review of her complaint. See, e.g., id.
Even if we were to consider the merits of Mother's appeal, we would find no reversible error. She asserts the trial court erred in excluding and failing to consider "a final judgment that gave [her] permanent custody and the permanent warrant to take physical custody as admissible evidence." According to Mother, the trial court's failure to consider the evidence rendered its decision "so contrary to the overwhelming weight of this evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Thus, the trial court's judgment is not supported by factually sufficient evidence."
Without citation to the record, Mother contends that the trial court's "findings of fact and conclusions of law . . . clearly stated that the [trial court] did not regard either the Office of Attorney General final judgment . . . or the permanent warrant . . . as admissible evidence." The trial court, however, did not enter separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nor do either the Memorandum Ruling or the 2022 Order refer to an Office of Attorney General final judgment or a warrant to take personal custody.
To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, state the specific grounds therefor, and obtain a ruling. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(A); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707, 710-11 (Tex. 2003); In re J.C., 594 S.W.3d 466, 473 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth, 2019, no pet.). A party that fails to do so does not preserve its complaint for appellate review. J.C., 594 S.W.3d at 473. Mother has not provided any citation to the record to show where she sought admission or consideration of the final judgment and warrant or a related ruling by the trial court. Accordingly, she has not preserved her complaint for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(A).
Further, from Mother's brief, it is evident that the documents to which she refers were entered prior to the 2018 Order that she seeks to modify. In a suit to modify a conservatorship order, a petitioner must show, as a threshold issue, that "the circumstances of the child, a conservator, or other party affected by the order [to be modified] have materially and substantially changed since . . . the date of the rendition of the order." TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 156.101(A)(1)(A) (EMPHASIS ADDED); In re K.S.F., No. 05-21-01030-CV, 2023 WL 1501632, at *4 (Tex. App.- Dallas Feb. 3, 2023, no pet.) (citing Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582, 589 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006, pet. denied)). Thus, Mother was required to demonstrate what conditions existed at the time the 2018 Order was entered and what material conditions had changed between then and the March 2022 bench trial. See In re S.N.Z., 421 S.W.3d 899, 909 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, pet. denied). Orders entered prior to the 2018 Order, therefore, were irrelevant to the trial court's determination that there had not been a substantial and material change in circumstances with the children or parents that warranted a modification. See, e.g., In re Z.A.T., 193 S.W.3d 197, 209-10 (Tex. App.-Waco 2006, pet. denied) (trial court did not abuse discretion in sustaining relevancy objection to evidence of circumstances that took place before entry of decree sought to be modified).
We affirm the trial court's June 7, 2022 Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's June 7, 2022 Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered.
Justices Molberg and Carlyle participating.