in the Interest of M.A.B., a Child ( 2017 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00417-CV
In the Interest of M.A.B., a Child
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015EM504304
Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 26, 2017
AFFIRMED
Justin Russell Adcock appeals from a judgment establishing the parent-child relationship.
In two issues, Adcock argues the trial court erred by not allowing him an opportunity to present
his side of the case and by setting child support in excess of the amount allowed by the Texas
Family Code. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On July 6, 2015, the Texas Office of the Attorney General filed a petition to establish the
parent-child relationship between Adcock and M.A.B. Adcock was served with the petition and
participated in court-ordered DNA testing, which showed that he was M.A.B.’s biological father.
The case was set for trial on the merits on June 1, 2016. On June 1, 2016, Adcock filed a
document stating that he was no longer a Texas resident, was residing in Ohio, and would be
04-16-00417-CV
unable to appear for trial. Adcock also requested that the court “not order my physical appearance
for any matters involving this case” and stated that “[i]f the court[] could please honor this [and]
cease to continue with such orders” then he “would be more than happy to cooperate by any means
which are available to me.”
On June 1, 2016, the trial court called the case for trial. Adcock failed to appear. The
Attorney General presented evidence, consisting of the testimony of the child’s mother and the
DNA testing results. The trial court rendered judgment establishing the parent-child relationship
between Adcock and M.A.B., and ordering conservatorship, visitation, and retroactive, medical,
and child support for M.A.B. Adcock appealed.
PROCEEDING TO TRIAL
In his first issue, Adcock argues that the trial court “move[d] forward with a trial and
subsequent judgment” without allowing him “any opportunity to present his side of the case or
documents necessary to move forward with a fair and just ruling.” Adcock cites no cases or other
authority to support his argument.
“The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require adequate briefing.” ERI Consulting
Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 880 (Tex. 2010); In re Estate of Valdez, 406 S.W.3d
228, 235 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied). In particular, Rule 38.1(i) requires that an
appellant’s brief contain clear and concise arguments with “appropriate citations to authorities and
to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). An appellant who fails to satisfy these requirements waives
the issue on appeal. Valdez, 406 S.W.3d at 235.
Because Adcock cites no cases or other authority to support his argument, his first issue is
waived for inadequate briefing. See id. (concluding issue was waived when the appellant’s brief
failed to contain clear and concise argument with appropriate citation to authorities and to the
record).
-2-
04-16-00417-CV
CHILD SUPPORT AMOUNT
In his second issue, Adcock argues the trial court violated chapter 154 of the Texas Family
Code by setting the amount of child support in excess of the amount allowed by statute. In its
judgment, the trial court ordered Adcock to pay child support in the amount of $220.00 per month
beginning June 1, 2016.
Section 154.125(b) of the Texas Family Code provides that when the obligor’s monthly
net resources are not greater than $7500.00, the court shall set child support for one child at 20%
of the obligor’s monthly net resources. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.125(b) (West Supp. 2016).
Section 154.068 of the Texas Family Code provides that in the absence of evidence of a party’s
resources, the court shall presume that the party has income equal to the federal minimum wage
for a 40-hour week. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.068(a) (West Supp. 2016).
At trial, the only evidence of Adcock’s resources was the testimony of M.A.B.’s mother,
who said that she did not have much information about Adcock, that the minimum wage
presumption would have to be used to set the child support amount, and that Adcock had no other
children besides M.A.B. The record indicates that the trial court used the minimum wage
presumption to determine Adcock’s monthly net resources and applied 20% to this amount to
calculate Adcock’s monthly child support obligation. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.068(a),
154.125(b). We conclude the child support ordered by the trial court did not violate chapter 154 of
the Texas Family Code. 1 We overrule Adcock’s second issue.
1
In addition, the trial court ordered Adcock to pay cash medical support in the amount of $30.00 per month, granted a
judgment against Adcock for retroactive child support in the amount of $ 5,500.00, and ordered Adcock to pay the
judgment by paying $100.00 per month. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.181(a) (West 2014) (requiring trial courts
to set medical support); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.009(a) (West 2014) (allowing trial courts to set retroactive child
support); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.636(g),(h) (West Supp. 2016) (allowing trial courts, on a finding of parentage,
to order retroactive child support as provided by Chapter 154).
-3-
04-16-00417-CV
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Karen Angelini, Justice
-4-