A 2025 Fort Worth Court of Appeals decision, In the Interest of J.D., offers a cautionary lesson for self-represented (pro se) parents navigating custody modification proceedings.
Per the published opinion, the case involves a mother who appealed an unfavorable custody order but lost her case not on the merits, but on two procedural failures: inadequate briefing of her appellate issues and failure to preserve her complaints in the trial court. While the mother’s frustration with the trial court’s decision was understandable, her inability to follow appellate procedures and trial court protocols meant her arguments never received substantive review. For Dallas-area residents considering custody modifications or other family law matters, understanding these procedural requirements is critical, especially if you’re considering representing yourself. A Dallas child custody lawyer experienced in appellate procedures can help ensure your legitimate complaints actually reach appellate review rather than being dismissed on technical grounds.
Case Background: Years of Custody Disputes and Failed Appeal
A.G. (Mother) and G.D. (Father) married in April 2007 and had a child (Son) in August 2009. After filing for divorce in January 2010, the trial court issued a final decree in October 2010. Over the following years, the parties engaged in numerous proceedings regarding custody, possession, and fulfillment of their divorce decree obligations.
In August 2023, Mother filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship. She requested sole managing conservatorship of Son, removal of previously imposed geographic restrictions on Son’s primary residence, denial of Father’s possession and access rights, and changes to child support, medical support, and dental support provisions. Notably, Mother’s petition stated that “the child is at least 12 years of age and will tell to the Court in chambers that she or he prefers that I have the exclusive right to determine his or her residence.” This statement suggested Mother anticipated requesting a child interview under Texas Family Code § 153.009.
That same month, Father filed a counterpetition seeking denial or continuous supervision of Mother’s possession and access. The trial court conducted a final hearing in August 2024. Mother represented herself pro se, and both Mother and Father testified. After the hearing, the trial court granted Father’s petition and denied Mother’s petition.
Mother appealed the trial court’s order to the Fort Worth Court of Appeals but quickly encountered procedural obstacles that proved fatal to her appeal.
Legal Analysis: Briefing Requirements, Preservation Rules, and Procedural Defaults
The Briefing Requirements: More Than Just “Saying So”
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 38.1 establishes specific requirements for appellants’ briefs. An appellant’s brief must “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” Merely stating conclusions without legal analysis and without citing legal authorities is insufficient. As the appellate court emphasized, “failure to cite legal authority or provide substantive analysis of the legal issue presented results in waiver of the complaint.”
Mother’s brief illustrated this problem perfectly. The substantive portions of her brief, the “Statement of Facts,” “Statement of Case,” “Summary of Argument,” and “Argument” sections, comprised less than one page total. Notably, her brief contained no citations to the trial court record whatsoever. Her entire “Argument” section consisted of one paragraph expressing frustration about the trial court’s decision, mentioning Son should have been interviewed, and complaining about child support and medical support amounts.
The court found this briefing inadequate for multiple reasons. First, Mother failed to cite the record to support her complaints. Second, she failed to provide legal analysis of what Son would have said in an interview or what appropriate child support and medical support amounts would be. Third, she failed to explain how her complaints would necessitate reversal of the trial court’s order.
The Preservation Rule: Raising Issues in the Trial Court First
Even if Mother had adequately briefed her appellate issues, Texas appellate procedure contains another critical requirement: issues must be preserved in the trial court first. This is not a technicality, it is a fundamental principle preventing parties from ambushing opponents with surprise arguments on appeal.
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 33.1(a)(1)(A) requires that “a party must present to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific grounds for the desired ruling, if not apparent from the request’s, objection’s, or motion’s context.” The objecting party must also get a ruling, either express or implied, from the trial court regarding the objection.
The purpose of preservation is straightforward: it gives the trial judge opportunity to address the complaint, perhaps ruling in the complaining party’s favor and eliminating the need for appeal. Preservation also allows the non-complaining party to respond and provide evidence addressing the concern. Without preservation, appellate courts would become forums for surprise arguments the trial judge never had opportunity to consider.
Mother’s Failure to Preserve the Child Interview Issue
Mother’s first complaint was that the trial court failed to interview Son pursuant to Texas Family Code § 153.009(a). That statute provides that “in a nonjury trial or at a hearing, on the application of a party … , the court shall interview in chambers a child 12 years of age or older … to determine the child’s wishes as to conservatorship or as to the person who shall have the exclusive right to determine the child’s primary residence.”
The statute’s language is explicit: interviews are required “on the application of a party.” An application requires affirmative action by the party seeking the interview. Mother’s petition to modify mentioned that Son would tell the court he preferred Mother’s custody, but she never actually made a formal application requesting the interview at trial. She did not raise the issue during the hearing on the modification petitions either.
The trial court had no way of knowing Mother wanted Son interviewed. Without an explicit application or request, the trial court had no obligation to conduct the interview. More importantly, Mother’s failure to request the interview meant she failed to preserve the issue for appeal. When the appellate court reviewed this complaint, it was analyzing an issue Mother had never raised with the trial judge.
Mother’s Failure to Preserve the Child Support and Medical Support Issues
Mother’s second complaint involved child support and medical support determinations. However, the appellate court’s review of the hearing transcript revealed a critical fact: Mother never presented any argument or evidence about child support and medical support during the trial court hearing. The trial court gave Mother repeated opportunities to do so, asking if she had anything to add and asking at the hearing’s conclusion whether she had additional witnesses or evidence. Mother responded, “I don’t.”
By failing to raise child support and medical support issues at trial, Mother failed to preserve them for appeal. The trial court never had opportunity to address these concerns. The opposing party never had opportunity to respond with evidence about appropriate amounts. The appellate court could not address issues that were never presented to the trial judge.
The Appellate Court’s Frustration with Pro Se Representation
While the appellate court expressed a preference to “construe briefs liberally so as not to waive the right to appellate review” and acknowledged that “we should hesitate to resolve cases on procedural defects and instead work to resolve cases on their merits,” the court also noted clearly: “we are not responsible for identifying possible trial court error, searching the record for facts favorable to a party’s position, or conducting legal research to support a party’s contentions.”
The court emphasized that pro se litigants are “held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure.” This is significant: self-representation does not excuse procedural non-compliance. Courts will not do legal work for pro se parties, even when sympathizing with their situations.
Key Takeaways for Dallas-Area Divorcing Couples
Self-representation in family law appeals carries extreme risks. Appellate procedure is technical and unforgiving. Inadequate briefing and failure to preserve issues result in losing appeals without any consideration of your actual complaints’ merits. The stakes are too high for procedural mistakes.
You must raise trial court issues in the trial court first. Do not expect to surprise the judge on appeal with arguments never presented at trial. Request interviews, present evidence, make objections, all in front of the trial judge. This is the only way to preserve issues for appeal.
Brief requirements exist for good reason. Your appellate brief must contain legal authority, record citations, and analysis explaining why you should win. A rambling paragraph expressing frustration will not suffice, even if your underlying complaint has merit.
Trial court opportunities are your only chance to address some issues. If you fail to request a child interview or present evidence about child support, you cannot later appeal the trial court’s failure to consider these matters. The trial court cannot address what it never hears.
Pro se representation often fails because of procedural non-compliance, not lack of merit. Many self-represented litigants lose not because their underlying claims are without merit, but because they fail to comply with procedural requirements designed to ensure fair process.
Strategic Insights: How Professional Representation Makes a Difference
Different approaches might have produced an entirely different outcome. Alternative strategies might have included: filing a formal written motion requesting Son’s interview well before trial; presenting detailed evidence and argument about child support and medical support at trial; filing an appellate brief with specific record citations, legal authorities, and analysis of how those authorities apply to the facts; and understanding preservation requirements before trial rather than after losing on appeal.
A best divorce lawyer in Dallas familiar with both trial procedures and appellate requirements helps ensure your legitimate complaints are properly preserved and adequately briefed for appellate review.
Protecting Your Rights Through Professional Advocacy
Navigating custody modifications requires understanding both trial court procedures and appellate requirements. Procedural mistakes can eliminate your opportunity for appellate review regardless of your underlying claim’s merit.
Contact our office for a Dallas divorce lawyer consultation. With 25+ years of family law experience including appellate work, we help clients navigate complex custody proceedings and ensure their issues are properly preserved and effectively presented. We serve Dallas and surrounding areas including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, and beyond.
Whether you need a Dallas family law attorney to help with trial court modification proceedings or to evaluate appellate options after an unfavorable order, we provide strategic guidance about what courts require and how to protect your rights. We understand the emotional stakes in custody disputes and ensure that legitimate complaints reach meaningful review rather than being dismissed on procedural grounds.
Don’t let procedural mistakes undermine your case. Let us help you navigate custody proceedings effectively and preserve your appellate rights.
