in the Interest of E. M. M. a Child ( 2006 )

NO. 07-06-0126-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
OCTOBER 10, 2006
______________________________
IN THE INTEREST OF E.M.M.
_________________________________
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2005-529,976; HON. RUSTY LADD, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., CAMPBELL, J., and BOYD, S.J.1
Ramon Montelongo, Jr., appeals pro se from an order appointing Adelina Perez as
sole managing conservator of E.M.M.; Montelongo was appointed possessory
conservator.2 In his brief, appellant asserts that 1) he was unaware that custody of the
child and the visitation rights of his parents would be determined in the same proceeding,
2) he lacked opportunity to obtain counsel for the trial, 3) he lacked notice of the hearing
and opportunity to prepare for it, and 4) the final order contained provisions not discussed
at the trial. We affirm the order.
1
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. T E X . G O V ’T
C O D E A N N . §75.002 (a)(1 ) (Vernon Sup p. 2006).
2
Th e rec ord s how s that appellant is inc arcerate d, and the child’s m othe r is decea sed .
First, we note that appellant appeared at the trial of this matter, as did the attorney
he hired to represent him against pending criminal charges. The latter attorney informed
the trial court that his client, Montelongo, “through me appearing pro bono in this matter,
wants to raise” an issue. The issue, however, did not involve any complaint raised at bar.
Nor did he complain to the trial court about lacking counsel to advise him or of insufficient
prior notice of the hearing. Similarly absent is any objection to the trial court’s
consideration of both custody of the child and visitation by third parties in the same
proceeding. Therefore, any error that may have arisen was waived. Lemons v. EMW Mfg.
Co., 747 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex. 1988) (stating that the failure to object or request a
continuance waives error when the trial court proceeds to consider matters a party did not
believe would be considered at a particular hearing).
As to matters purportedly being included in the final order that went unmentioned
at trial, appellant does not tell us of what those matters consist. Nor does he explain how
the circumstance purportedly harmed him. This is of concern because an appellant must
include in his brief clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropriate
citations to authorities and to the record. TEX . R. APP. P. 38.1(h). Moreover, the failure to
adequately brief an issue results in its waiver. Sunnyside Feedyard, L.C. v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 106 S.W.3d 169, 173 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, no pet.). So, due to
inadequate briefing, Montelongo waived his complaint about the supposed deviation
between what was said at the hearing and the substance of the final order. 3
3
A pro se plaintiff must follow the applicable laws and rules of pro ced ure. Holt v. F. F. Enterprises,
990 S.W .2d 756, 759 (Tex. App.–Am arillo 199 8, pet. denied).
2
Accordingly, we overrule his points of error and affirm the judgment.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
3