IN THE INTEREST OF v. << (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Father appeals the trial court's order in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship following a trial by the court. Because Father has failed to provide this Court with a brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, we dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, 42.3; Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.).

This case involves custody of Father's child, N.R.N. Mother sought sole managing conservatorship of N.R.N., from Father, due to concerns of abuse. After a finding of family violence towards N.R.N., the trial court removed Father as managing conservator and appointed him possessory conservator. The trial court found Father to be intentionally unemployed or underemployed and ordered him to pay child support and cash medical support for N.R.N., including applicable arrearages. In addition, Father was permanently enjoined from causing physical contact or bodily injury, or making threats to Mother. Father was also enjoined from interfering with possession of N.R.N. or entering or remaining on the premises of his school. Appearing pro se, Father timely perfected his appeal and subsequently tendered a brief on February 23, 2017.

Because the brief tendered to the Court did not satisfy the briefing requirements of our appellate rules, we notified Father the brief was deficient and instructed him to file an amended brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. The letter specifically listed the multiple deficiencies identified with Father's brief. We expressly informed Father that failure to file a compliant brief might result in the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See id. 42.3(b), (c). In spite of our admonishment, Father has not filed an amended brief, nor corresponded with this Court.

We hold pro se litigants to the same standard as licensed attorneys. See Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677-78 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied). It is the role of the pro se litigant to ensure his case is properly presented to the courts. Id. To properly satisfy its role in the appellate process, the appellate court must have before it a proper brief. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. To that end, the rules of appellate procedure list specific requirements a brief must contain. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. The briefing rules of appellate procedure are construed liberally; however, a brief fails to meet this standard if it is substantially deficient in form or substance. See id. 38.9. Furthermore, this Court is authorized to dismiss an appeal for substantial deviance from the rules. See id. 42.3.

Father's brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure and is deficient in both form and substance. More specifically, in addition to failing to conform to the formal layout described in rules 9.5 and 38.1 (a)-(c), (k), the brief is also substantively deficient under rule 38.1 (d), (f), (g), and (i). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 38.1. At a minimum, Father's brief should “state concisely the complaint [he] may have, provide understandable, succinct, and clear argument for why [his] complaint has merit in fact and in law, and cite and apply law that is applicable to the complaint being made along with references that are appropriate.” Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896 (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (f), (h), and (i)). Father fails to outline his case argument, the trial court proceedings, state the trial court's disposition of the case, and include citations to the record in support thereof. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d). While Father's brief contains a sufficient statement of his argument, he does not articulate the issues that he would like this Court to decide nor does he cite to either the record or case law to support his argument. See id. 38.1(f), (g), and (i).

Because Father's brief is substantially deficient in both form and substance and does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure, we dismiss this appeal. See. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE