In the Interest of K.A, U.A., and A.A., Children v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed January 9, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00150-CV
__________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.A., U.A., AND A.A., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 259th District Court
Jones County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 025620

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from the trial court’s final order in an original suit affecting
the parent-child relationship in which it designated Appellees, S.P. and E.P, as the
sole managing conservators of the children and Appellant R.F., and J.A. as
possessory conservators. Appellant purportedly challenges the trial court’s rulings,
complaining that it abused its discretion in making these determinations because she
did not abandon the children as Appellees alleged.
Appellant appears pro se on appeal. Therefore, we construe her brief liberally.
See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978); Aaron v.
Fisher, 645 S.W.3d 299, 312 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, no pet.). Despite this,
Appellant, in proceeding in such a capacity, is nonetheless held to the same standards
as licensed attorneys and is required to comply with all applicable laws and rules of
procedure. Mansfield State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 184–85 (recognizing that acting
pro se is not a license of noncompliance to the relevant rules of procedural and
substantive law); Barrientos v. Barrientos, 675 S.W.3d 399, 404 n.2 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 2023, pet. denied) (“[W]e hold pro se litigants to the same standards as
licensed attorneys and require them to be familiar with and comply with all
applicable laws and rules of procedure.”); Aaron, 645 S.W.3d at 312.
Irrespective of Appellant’s pro se status, the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure require that an appellant’s brief “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); see Barrientos, 675 S.W.3d at 412–13; Dipprey v. Double
Diamond, Inc., 637 S.W.3d 784, 814–15 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021, no pet.). Here,
Appellant’s brief is deficient and contains none of the requirements mandated by
Rule 38.1(i). In fact, her brief is devoid of any citations to the record or to any legal
authority that could conceivably develop or support her arguments on appeal. To
the contrary, and without references to the record, Appellant’s brief only contains a
brief “summary” and exhibits that include copies of electronic transmissions
between her and others, “character” witness statements, and other materials that do
not appear in the record. Thus, even if Appellant’s brief did comply with the
requirements of Rule 38.1(i), we may not consider “evidence” or other documents
that are attached as exhibits to an appellate brief. See Children of the Kingdom v.
Central Appraisal Dist. of Taylor Cnty., 674 S.W.3d 407, 415 n.3 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 2023, pet. denied); Creekside Rural Invs., Inc. v. Hicks, 644 S.W.3d 896,
906 n.5 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, no pet.); Bell v. State for S.E.G., 659 S.W.3d
21, 24 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, pet. denied); WorldPeace v. Comm’n for Lawyer
2
Discipline, 183 S.W.3d 451, 465 n.23 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet.
denied).
We are not required to search the record to identify the alleged errors of which
Appellant complains. See Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881
S.W.2d 279, 283 (Tex. 1994). In this case, Appellant’s brief fails to: (1) cite to the
record; (2) cite any applicable legal authority; or (3) provide any substantive analysis
of the complaint which she attempts to advance on appeal. Because Appellant’s
brief is deficient, inadequate, and fails to comply with the requirements of
Rule 38.1(i), Appellant has waived her purported complaint on appeal. As such, she
presents nothing for our review. See Horne v. Atmos Energy Corp., No. 11-22-
00325-CV, 2024 WL 4795278, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Eastland Nov. 15, 2024, no pet.
h.) (mem. op.); Dipprey, 637 S.W.3d at 814–15; Matter of Estate of Ethridge, 594
S.W.3d 611, 617 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2019, no pet.) (overruling the issue raised
because “[a]ppellant failed to appropriately cite to . . . the record” in support of the
issue and argument); Lowry v. Tarbox, 537 S.W.3d 599, 620 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 2017, pet. denied) (“[F]ailure to offer argument, provide appropriate
record citations, or a substantive analysis waives an appellate issue.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.

W. STACY TROTTER
JUSTICE

January 9, 2025
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3