MIGUEL CAMACHO v. MARIA DOMINGUEZ (2012)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Morris

In this suit affecting the parent-child relationship, Miguel A. Camacho attempts to appeal the trial court's final order with respect to the custody and possession of his minor child.   Camacho, representing himself without an attorney, complains that he did not agree to the terms of the standard possession order at the pre-hearing interview.   For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

Maria Dominguez filed this lawsuit without an attorney seeking to be appointed joint managing conservator of the couple's child with the exclusive right to determine the child's residence.   Camacho, representing himself, filed an answer to her petition.   On September 28, 2010, the trial court signed an order designating Camacho and Maria Dominguez joint managing conservators of the child and awarding Dominguez the right to choose the location of the child's primary home.   The trial court also awarded Camacho standard possession and access to the child.   Camacho timely filed a notice of appeal.   Camacho filed an appellant's brief in furtherance of his appeal.   We notified him of eleven deficiencies in the brief and instructed him to file an amended brief that complied with the rules of appellate procedure.   In response to our notification, Camacho filed the amended brief now before us.

Our rules of appellate procedure require an appellant to state concisely his complaints, to provide succinct and clear arguments for why his complaints have merit in fact and law, to cite and apply law that is relevant and supports appellant's complaints, and to make appropriate citations to the record.   See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(f)-(i);  Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep.   Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.).   Only when we are provided with proper briefing may we discharge our responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that resolves the appeal one way or the other.   Id. Although Camacho has the right to represent himself on appeal, he must still adhere to our rules of appellate procedure;  he will not be treated differently than a party who is represented by a licensed attorney.   See id.

In his amended brief, Camacho presents a single issue asserting that the custody issue should have been “brought to trial” because he did not agree “to the terms that were presented during the pre-hearing interview.”   In the “Statement of Facts” portion of his amended brief, Camacho asserts without any citation to the record that he told the trial judge at the pre-hearing interview that he did not agree to the standard possession order because it was not in his best interest.   He further asserts the trial judge stated that if the parties did not reach an agreement on the possession order by September 28, 2010, “the case would dissolve.”   This section also contains other assertions without record references or citation to legal authority.   Camacho's amended brief does not contain an “Argument” section providing a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of his arguments, nor does the body of the brief cite us to any legal authority to support his complaints.   Construing the amended brief liberally in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.9, we conclude Camacho presents nothing but an assertion of error without any cogent argument based in law or fact to support his complaint.

Because Camacho failed to comply with our briefing requirements after having been instructed and given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss this appeal.   See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 897;  see also Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(c).

101528F.P05

S

Court of AppealsFifth District of Texas at DallasJUDGMENT

MIGUEL A. CAMACHO, Appellant

No. 05–10–01528–CV V.

MARIA DOMINGUEZ, AppelleeAppeal from the 254 th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  (Tr.Ct.No.10–13365).

Opinion delivered by Justice Morris, Justices Fillmore and Myers participating.

In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.   It is ORDERED that appellee Maria Dominguez recover her costs of this appeal from appellant Miguel A. Camacho.

Judgment entered March 28, 2012.

/Joseph B. Morris/

JOSEPH B. MORRIS

JUSTICE

JOSEPH B. MORRIS JUSTICE