In the Interest of A.R.M.S. and G.R.S., Children v. the State of Texas

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 5, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00098-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.M.S. AND G.R.S., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 300th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 65638

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mother filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of her
petition for bill of review. Finding Mother failed to adequately brief this issue on
appeal, we determine that nothing is presented for our review and therefore affirm
the trial court’s judgment.

ANALYSIS

Neither the clerk’s record nor Mother’s appellate brief provides a clear
description of this matter’s procedural history. The clerk’s record contains the
following:
February 25, 2021 Mother’s petition to modify the parent-child
relationship, in which she sought to be named
the children’s sole managing conservator.

March 16, 2021 Father’s answer.

January 19, 2022 Motion to withdraw filed by Father’s attorney.
The order granting the motion is followed by a
notice of appearance for Father’s new attorney.
September 29, 2022 Father’s motion for an order compelling
discovery.

September 29, 2022 Mother’s motion for the trial court judge to
confer with the children.
November 14, 2022 Father’s counter-petition to modify the parent-
child relationship, in which Father sought to
change the amount of Mother’s child support
obligation.
January 13, 2023 Corrected agreed temporary orders.

January 13, 2023 Signed order in suit to modify parent-child
relationship.

February 13, 2023 Mother’s notice of appeal.

The argument portion of Mother’s appellate brief is six pages comprised of 23
numbered paragraphs. Liberally construed, Mother’s brief appears to assert that
Mother did not receive notice of the “August 14, 2017 trial date” in the underlying
proceeding and, accordingly, the post-answer default judgment entered against her
should be set aside. The brief then appears to argue that the trial court erred in
denying Mother’s petition for bill of review. The clerk’s record does not contain
any reference to the “August 14, 2017 trial date,” the post-answer default judgment
entered against Mother, or Mother’s petition for bill of review.

However, the appellate record does contain a reporter’s record from the
2
October 28, 2021 hearing on Mother’s petition for bill of review. At the hearing,
Mother’s attorney stated that the petition for bill of review was filed in January
2018 and asserted that Mother did not receive notice of the August 2017 trial
setting in the underlying proceeding. This violated Mother’s “due process rights,”
her attorney argued, because the order issued after the August 2017 trial setting
(1) made Father the children’s primary joint managing conservator, and
(2) instituted a child support obligation on Mother.

Ruling on the petition, the trial court stated:

I do not find notice of the August 14, 2017[] final trial. [Father’s
attorney], off the record, indicated that he sent it; but he doesn’t have
a copy of it to look at today.
Since I don’t have that, I’m going to grant in part and deny in part the
bill of review. The Temporary Orders’ notice was provided
appropriately. So, those orders will stay in place with regard to
custody. But the final hearing notice, I haven’t seen; and therefore,
the bill of review will be granted from a due process standpoint on
final [sic] because I don’t have notice of that final hearing.
* * *
So granted in part, denied in part.

Mother’s appellate brief, read in conjunction with this reporter’s record, makes it
even more difficult to ascertain exactly what relief Mother is requesting on appeal
— particularly since the trial court granted in part Mother’s petition for bill of
review.

The 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). When an appellate issue is
unsupported by argument or lacks citation to the record or legal authority, nothing
is presented for our review. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150

3
S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004); In re L.E.R., 650 S.W.3d 771, 788 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.).

Here, Mother’s brief wholly fails to present any issue for appellate review:
it does not contain any citations to the record nor does it provide any substantive
analysis for our consideration. Therefore, we conclude Mother’s alleged issue is
waived as inadequately briefed. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); see also, e.g., In re
L.E.R., 650 S.W.3d at 788-89.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s January 13, 2023 order in suit to modify parent-
child relationship.

/s/ Meagan Hassan
Justice

Panel consists of Justices Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson.

4