In the Interest of D.A v. and N.B v. Children v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-25-00833-CV

                        IN THE INTEREST OF D.A.V. and N.B.V., Children

                      From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                    Trial Court No. 2022PA00786
                          Honorable Raul Perales, Associate Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  H. Todd McCray, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 22, 2026

AFFIRMED

           C.R., the mother of D.A.V. and N.B.V., appeals from a “Modification of Final Order in

Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship.” The modification order appoints J.A.V.S., the

children’s father, as the sole managing conservator of the children and C.R. as the children’s

possessory conservator. We affirm.

           After C.R. perfected her appeal, she filed a brief that failed to comply with Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.1. Among other things, C.R.’s brief failed to include a single record

citation and a proper legal argument. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i). We struck C.R.’s brief, and

we ordered her to file an amended brief. We cautioned C.R. that her amended brief must comply

with all the requirements of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.
                                                                                       04-25-00833-CV


       Thereafter, C.R. filed an amended brief. C.R.’s amended brief also violated Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.1 because it did not contain a statement of facts with record references and

a proper legal argument with appropriate citations to authorities and the appellate record. In our

order accepting C.R.’s amended brief, we noted its deficiencies. See id. Nevertheless, we did not

order C.R. to file a second amended brief, but we warned that the submission panel could

determine that C.R. had waived one or more issues due to inadequate briefing. C.R. filed no further

briefing, and the case was submitted without oral argument.

       As a pro se litigant, C.R. is held to the same standards as a licensed attorney and must

comply with all applicable procedural rules. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181,

184–85 (Tex. 1978) (“There cannot be two sets of procedural rules, one for litigants with counsel

and the other for litigants representing themselves.”). “The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

require adequate briefing.” ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 880 (Tex.

2010). It is well-settled that, under these rules, an appellant’s brief must concisely state the facts,

supported by record references, and contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made

with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g),

(i); Williams v. Stiles, No. 04-18-00575-CV, 2020 WL 1277701, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

Mar. 18, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

       While pro se litigants must comply with the applicable procedural rules, application of the

rules “may require a different result when the actor is not a lawyer.” Li v. Pemberton Park Cmty.

Ass’n, 631 S.W.3d 701, 706 (Tex. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439,

444 (Tex. 2005)). “[C]ourts should ‘review and evaluate pro se pleadings with liberality and

patience.’” Li, 631 S.W.3d at 706 (citation omitted); see also In re A.G.D., No. 07-15-00201-CV,

2016 WL 316879, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 22, 2016, no pet.) (applying standard to pro se




                                                 -2-
                                                                                   04-25-00833-CV


appellate brief) (cited by Li, 631 S.W.3d at 706 n.5). In addition, the Texas Supreme Court “ha[s]

admonished appellate courts to ‘reach the merits of an appeal whenever reasonably possible’ and

cautioned that ‘disposing of appeals for harmless procedural defects is disfavored.’” Horton v.

Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam) (quoting Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585,

587 (Tex. 2008)). “Nevertheless, it is ‘settled’ that ‘an appellate court has some discretion to

choose between deeming a point waived and allowing amendment or rebriefing’ and ‘whether that

discretion has been properly exercised depends on the facts of the case.’” Id. at 569–70 (quoting

Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994)); see also Phillips

Motors Co. v. Million Auto Parts, No. 04-19-00391-CV, 2020 WL 1159062, at *2 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio Mar. 11, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming judgment where appellant waived

complaints by failing to comply with briefing rules).

       In this case, the modification order notes that a hearing was held on November 20, 2025.

However, the appellate record contains no reporter’s record for this hearing. Instead, the only

reporter’s record in the appellate record is from hearings in 2023 and 2024. After these hearings,

the trial court, on February 14, 2024, signed a “Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child

Relationship.” Thus, the reporter’s record that C.R. has marshalled is from an earlier custody

order. We are therefore unaware of what evidence the trial court considered at the modification

hearing. See e.g., Elizondo v. Hilcorp Energy Co., No. 04-24-00714-CV, 2026 WL 100420, at *3

(Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 14, 2026, pet. filed) (mem op.) (holding that pro se appellant’s brief

was inadequate where, among other things, it inaccurately portrayed what transpired in the trial

court). Moreover, C.R.’s amended brief complains about J.A.V.S.’s alleged conduct between 2010

and 2015. The reporter’s record before us contains no evidence regarding J.A.V.S. and that period

of time.




                                               -3-
                                                                                         04-25-00833-CV


        For these reasons, C.R.’s amended brief presents nothing for our review. See Tindell v.

Hildebrandt, No. 04-23-00414-CV, 2025 WL 1063115, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 9,

2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“In short, [pro se appellant’s] filings, including her amended brief, her

letters, and her additional brief, present nothing for review because they include no record citations

or record support and no legal citations or legal analysis.”); In re S.R.V., No. 04-17-00556-CV,

2018 WL 626533, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 31, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an

appellant . . . fails to cite applicable authority, fails to provide relevant citations to the record, or

fails to provide substantive analysis for an issue presented in the brief[,] nothing is presented for

our review, i.e., error is waived.”).

        The trial court’s modification order is affirmed.


                                                    Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice




                                                  -4-