Background
The mother and father of two daughters had previously established conservatorship and custody arrangements. In 2021, the father petitioned to modify these arrangements and child support. The case proceeded through four years of litigation, including a bench trial in August 2023 where the trial court interviewed both children in chambers (both under age 12). The father later moved to reopen the evidence. The mother failed to appear for the November 2023 hearing on reopened evidence but successfully moved for a new trial on that issue, which occurred in May 2024.
During the proceedings, the mother sought various relief, including denial of her no-evidence summary judgment motion, a motion to deem the father’s discovery responses as admissions, a jury trial (despite having originally waived jury), and accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The trial court granted several accommodations, including allowing a support person at counsel table and additional time to present her case, but denied her request for real-time transcription services (CART), explaining it lacked the necessary technology.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in its entirety. The opinion extensively addresses procedural defects in the mother’s appeal. The mother’s original opening brief failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, containing no citations to the record and citing a nonexistent case. When granted leave to file an amended brief purportedly to cure these technical deficiencies, the mother instead nearly tripled the length of her brief and raised new issues not in the original. The court held that the mother was bound to the issues in her original opening brief and, despite the defects, would reach the merits of those original issues.
On the merits, the court rejected each claim. For the mother’s pretrial challenges to the trial court’s summary judgment and discovery rulings, the necessary documents were missing from the appellate record because the mother failed to designate them for inclusion. Applying the presumption that omitted evidence supports the trial court’s judgment, the court overruled these issues. The mother’s complaints about exclusion of her video evidence and expert testimony were deemed moot, as these were offered only in support of a motion for temporary relief, which is superseded by entry of a final judgment. The mother’s claim that she was entitled to a jury for the May 2024 reopened trial proceeding lacked legal foundation. As to the jury for the original trial, the mother had not requested a jury in writing and the judgment reflected that she had waived jury trial. Finally, regarding ADA discrimination, the court held that such claims constitute causes of action against the trial court that must be affirmatively pleaded and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant is bound to the issues raised in the original opening brief; amended briefs may not raise new issues without specific leave, and leave granted only to cure technical defects does not authorize expansion of issues.
- It is the appellant’s burden to include necessary documents in the appellate record; missing documents are presumed to support the trial court’s judgment.
- ADA discrimination claims must be pleaded as affirmative defenses and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as a collateral attack on a judgment.
- Complaints about temporary orders are moot once a final order has been entered.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strict requirements for appellate procedure in Texas family law cases and establishes important limitations on raising new arguments and procedural claims on appeal. The court’s treatment of the procedurally flawed brief—while ultimately deciding the merits out of an abundance of caution—sends a message about the importance of compliance with appellate rules. The opinion is particularly significant for its holding that ADA accommodation disputes, even when raising potential constitutional dimensions, cannot circumvent traditional appellate preservation rules and must be properly pleaded in the trial court.
For practitioners, the case underscores that in child custody and conservatorship modifications, trial courts have broad discretion to make findings based on parental conduct affecting children’s well-being, and appellate courts will defer to those findings when properly supported. The decision also clarifies that a parent’s disability and accommodation needs do not excuse compliance with appellate rules or provide a basis to raise new claims for the first time on appeal.