In the Matter of the Marriage of James Vaughn IV and Amber Vaughn v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-21-00167-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
JAMES VAUGHN IV AND AMBER VAUGHN
From the 369th District Court
Leon County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV20-0222
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In six issues, James Vaughn IV (James), acting pro se, appeals from the final decree
of divorce that dissolved his marriage with Amber Vaughn (Amber) following a bench
trial. 1
Issue One
In his first issue, James contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction of this
matter because Amber had not been a resident of Leon County for the ninety days before
the suit was filed.
1 Because the parties share the same surname, we will refer to them by their first names for clarity.
AUTHORITY
Section 6.301 of the Family Code provides:
A suit for divorce may not be maintained in this state unless at the time the
suit is filed either the petitioner or the respondent has been:
(1) a domiciliary of this state for the preceding six-month period; and
(2) a resident of the county in which the suit is filed for the preceding
90-day period.
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 6.301. “Although section 6.301 is not itself jurisdictional, it is akin
to a jurisdictional provision because it controls a party’s right to maintain a suit for
divorce and is a mandatory requirement that cannot be waived.” In re Green, 385 S.W.3d
665, 669 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, orig. proceeding); accord Stallworth v. Stallworth,
201 S.W.3d 338, 345 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2006, no pet.); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 86 S.W.3d 272,
276 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).
The question of residency is a fact issue for the trial court to determine, and a trial
court’s finding regarding residency will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of
discretion. Green, 385 S.W.3d at 669; Stallworth, 201 S.W.3d at 345. Admissions in
petitions for divorce stating that the residency requirements of divorce are satisfied “are
considered judicial admissions in the case in which the pleadings are filed, and no
additional proof is required of the admitted fact.” Barnard v. Barnard, 133 S.W.3d 782, 785
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied); see Hous. First Am. Sav. v. Musick, 650 S.W.2d
764, 767 (Tex. 1983) (“Assertions of fact, not pled in the alternative, in the live pleadings
of a party are regarded as formal judicial admissions. Any fact admitted is conclusively
established in the case without the introduction of the pleadings or presentation of other
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 2
evidence.”). Additionally, “[t]here are no limits on the number of residences that a party
may maintain at any one time.” Stallworth, 201 S.W.3d at 345 (citing McAlister v.
McAlister, 75 S.W.3d 481, 485 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied)).
DISCUSSION
Here, Amber filed her original petition for divorce in Leon County on July 13, 2020.
She stated in the petition that she had been “a resident of this county for the preceding
ninety-day period.” James then filed a counterpetition for divorce on August 26, 2020, in
which he stated: “This suit is properly maintained in this county because . . . [Amber]
has been a resident of this county for the past ninety (90) days.” Both James and Amber
therefore admitted the necessary residency requirements in their pleadings. See Barnard,
133 S.W.3d at 785. Furthermore, during the final hearing, Amber reaffirmed that she was
a resident of Leon County for the ninety-day period preceding the filing of her petition
for divorce.
James argues in his brief that the children attended school in Freestone County.
James also testified as follows during the final hearing:
Q. And was [Amber] a resident of Leon County for at least 90
days before she filed for a divorce?
A. As far as I - - I guess she lived in Leon County, we did, but
she didn’t use that address. She used the Freestone County address. Still
does, I believe.
Q. It’s possible that she was a resident, and she’s in fact testified
she was. Would you agree with that, then?
A. Yes.
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 3
But even if James’s testimony is some evidence that Amber maintained a residence in
Freestone County, nothing prevents her from maintaining a residence in both Freestone
and Leon counties at the same time. See Stallworth, 201 S.W.3d at 345.
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that at the
time of the filing of the suit, Amber had been a resident of Leon County for ninety days.
James’s first issue is overruled.
Issue Two
In his second issue, James contends that the trial court disregarded its own local
rules at certain times during this case.
James first complains that the local rules required that a standing temporary
restraining order be served on him with the initial service in this case but that the
standing temporary restraining order was not included in the initial service of process.
See generally LEON CNTY. (TEX.) DIST. CT. LOC. R. 4.7(B) (“The clerk of this court shall attach,
to each citation to be served, a copy of the Standing Temporary Restraining Order.”).
James also argues in this issue that the trial court “gave unfair advantage and
consideration” in this case by granting Amber a separate, “unwarranted” temporary
restraining order.
Temporary restraining orders are not appealable. In re Off. of Att’y Gen., 257
S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Newton, 146 S.W.3d 648,
652 (Tex. 2004). Additionally, the divorce decree here is final, and the temporary
restraining orders have expired; therefore, any complaints regarding the temporary
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 4
restraining orders are moot. See In re Marriage of Hernandez, No. 10-09-00136-CV, 2011
WL 3821995, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 10, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.).
James next argues in this issue that the local rules required that this case be
dismissed on January 3, 2021, but that the trial court “disregarded its own timelines.”
The original petition for divorce in this case was filed on July 13, 2020. The trial court
held the final hearing on February 25, 2021, and signed the final decree of divorce on
April 15, 2021.
Rule 4.2 of the Local Rules of the District Courts of Leon County, entitled “Time
Standards for Family Law Case Disposition,” provides:
Cases shall be tried or dismissed within 6 months from the appearance date
or within 6 months from the expiration of the waiting period provided by
the Family Code where such is required, whichever is later. Cases not
concluded within these time periods will be placed on the Dismissal For
Want of Prosecution Docket.
LEON CNTY. (TEX.) DIST. CT. LOC. R. 4.2. But throughout the entire pendency of this case
in the trial court, all 254 counties in the State of Texas had been declared a state of disaster
by the Governor of Texas “in response to the imminent threat of the COVID-19
pandemic.” See Thirty-Sixth Emergency Ord. Regarding COVID-19 State of Disaster, 629
S.W.3d 897, 897 (Tex. 2021); Thirty-Third Emergency Ord. Regarding COVID-19 State of
Disaster, 629 S.W.3d 179, 179 (Tex. 2021); Twenty-Ninth Emergency Ord. Regarding COVID-
19 State of Disaster, 629 S.W.3d 863, 863 (Tex. 2020); Twenty-Sixth Emergency Ord. Regarding
COVID-19 State of Disaster, 609 S.W.3d 135, 135 (Tex. 2020); Twenty-Second Emergency Ord.
Regarding COVID-19 State of Disaster, 609 S.W.3d 129, 129 (Tex. 2020); Eighteenth
Emergency Ord. Regarding COVID-19 State of Disaster, 609 S.W.3d 122, 122 (Tex. 2020).
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 5
Therefore, while this case was pending in the trial court, emergency orders issued by the
Texas Supreme Court were in place and provided:
Subject only to constitutional limitations, all courts in Texas may in any
case, civil or criminal—and must to avoid risk to court staff, parties,
attorneys, jurors, and the public—without a participant’s consent . . .
modify or suspend any and all deadlines and procedures, whether
prescribed by statute, rule, or order . . . .
Thirty-Sixth Emergency Ord., 629 S.W.3d at 897; Thirty-Third Emergency Ord., 629 S.W.3d at
179–80; Twenty-Ninth Emergency Ord., 629 S.W.3d at 863; Twenty-Sixth Emergency Ord., 609
S.W.3d at 135; Twenty-Second Emergency Ord., 609 S.W.3d at 129; Eighteenth Emergency
Ord., 609 S.W.3d at 122–23. Thus, the trial court did not err in modifying the deadlines
in this case.
James’s second issue is overruled.
Issues Three and Five
In his third and fifth issues, James contends that the trial court erred in its
determination of his custody and visitation rights to his children. As part of these issues,
James also complains about the trial court’s failure to file findings of fact and conclusions
of law; however, the record shows that the trial court filed findings of fact and
conclusions of law on May 27, 2021.
AUTHORITY
We will reverse a trial court’s order on custody, control, possession, and visitation
matters only if we determine, from reviewing the record as a whole, that the trial court
abused its discretion. Patterson v. Brist, 236 S.W.3d 238, 239–40 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2006, pet. dism’d); see Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). A trial
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 6
court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, without reference to
any guiding rules or principles. Patterson, 236 S.W.3d at 240.
In matters of conservatorship, possession, and access, the public policy of this State
is to:
(1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with
parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the
child;
(2) provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child; and
(3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their
child after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.001(a). The best interest of the child is the primary
consideration when determining issues related to conservatorship and possession of and
access to the child. Id. § 153.002.
When both parents are appointed as the child’s managing conservators, the trial
court specifies the rights and duties that are to be exercised by each parent. Id. § 153.071.
“The court may limit the rights and duties of a parent appointed as a conservator if the
court makes a written finding that the limitation is in the best interest of the child.” Id. §
153.072.
Regarding possession of the child, “[i]t is the policy of this state to encourage
frequent contact between a child and each parent for periods of possession that optimize
the development of a close and continuing relationship between each parent and child.”
Id. § 153.251(b). The guidelines in the standard possession order are intended to guide
courts as to the minimum possession of a child by a parent named as a joint managing
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 7
conservator. Id. § 153.251(a). And there is a rebuttable presumption that the standard
possession order provides the reasonable minimum possession of a child for a parent
named as a joint managing conservator and that the order is in the child’s best interest.
Id. § 153.252.
When, however, sufficient evidence rebuts this presumption, the trial court may
order possession that deviates from the standard possession order. In re N.P.M., 509
S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.); see TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.256.
When deviating from the standard possession order, the trial court must be guided by
the guidelines established by the standard possession order and may consider: (1) the
age, developmental status, circumstances, needs, and best interest of the child; (2) the
circumstances of the managing conservator and of the parent named as a possessory
conservator; and (3) any other relevant factor. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.256. If the trial
court deviates from the standard possession order, the trial court shall, upon timely
request, state in writing the specific reasons for the deviation from the standard order.
Id. § 153.258. A reviewing court’s holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion
implies that the evidence contained in the record rebutted the presumption that the
standard possession order was reasonable and was in the child’s best interest. N.P.M.,
509 S.W.3d at 564.
DISCUSSION
Here, James and Amber were appointed joint managing conservators of the
children, with Amber having the exclusive right to determine the children’s primary
residence. James’s possession and access were in line with a standard possession order,
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 8
but the trial court specified that all James’s “possession, visitation, and access shall be
under the supervision of [his mother].” In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
trial court stated its reasons for the deviation from the standard order as follows:
James Roy Vaughn, IV is entitled to periods of possession with [the
children] pursuant to the Standard Possession Order. The Court further
found that it would not be in the best interest of the children for James Roy
Vaughn, IV’s periods of possession to be unsupervised based upon the
following factual evidence received: the Court received evidence and
testimony during a temporary orders hearing on October 29, 2020, that
James Roy Vaughn, IV was discharged from the Air Force on or about
October 2019 related to abusing illegal narcotics, namely, heroin and other
illegal narcotics, and further that he had been arrested in September 2020
for possession of methamphetamine. That based upon this behavior of
James Roy Vaughn, IV that he may be a danger to [the] physical and
emotional well-being of the children and that visitation with the children
would not be in the children’s best interest unless his visits are supervised
by his mother . . . . The Court received evidence and testimony during the
Final Hearing on February 25, 2021 that James Roy Vaughn, IV had further
engaged in assaultive behavior on Christmas 2020 against Amber Vaughn.
The court found that based upon drug use in the recent past and his
assaulting behavior recently that the visits of James Roy Vaughn, IV with
his children should remain supervised by his mother . . . .
James essentially argues that there is no evidence to support the trial court’s
deviation from the standard order.
First, we must address the evidentiary value of the testimony presented during
the October 29, 2020 temporary orders hearing. “In order for testimony from a prior
hearing or trial to be considered in a subsequent proceeding, the transcript of that
testimony must be properly authenticated and entered into evidence.” Abila v. Miller, 683
S.W.3d 842, 849 (Tex. App.—Austin 2023, no pet.) (quoting Guyton v. Monteau, 332 S.W.3d
687, 693 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.)). The transcript of the testimony
from the October 29, 2020 temporary orders hearing was not authenticated and entered
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 9
into evidence at the February 25, 2021 final hearing in this case. Accordingly, the trial
court should not have relied on such testimony to support its deviation from the standard
possession order, and we cannot consider such testimony in our determination of
whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s deviation from the
standard order. See id. Compare, e.g., B.L.M. v. J.H.M., No. 03-14-00050-CV, 2014 WL
3562559, at *13 (Tex. App.—Austin July 17, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“Although the
trial court expressly took judicial notice of testimony and evidence admitted at prior
hearings—and to the extent the court took judicial notice of factual assertions in
documents filed with the court—that is not evidence we can consider as part of an
evidence-sufficiency review.”), with A.C. v. M.B., No. 01-20-00294-CV, 2021 WL 3729106,
at *7 n.7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“We may
consider the testimony from the temporary orders hearing in our sufficiency review
because the transcript of the temporary orders hearing was admitted into the evidence at
the termination hearing.”).
However, when we have a complete transcript of the proceedings before us, we
do not view the trial court’s written findings as conclusive. See Lucas v. Tex. Dep’t of
Protective & Regul. Servs., 949 S.W.2d 500, 502 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, writ denied),
disapproved of on other grounds by In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002). Instead, we review
the entire record and will not reverse an otherwise correct judgment simply because of
an erroneous finding. In re Marriage of Bonner, No. 10-10-00011-CV, 2010 WL 4409704, at
*3 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 3, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Lucas, 949 S.W.2d at 502).
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 10
We will affirm the trial court’s judgment even if its finding lacks sufficient evidentiary
support if the record contains sufficient evidence to do so. Id.
The record here shows that the following relevant evidence was presented during
the February 25, 2021 final hearing in this case. Amber testified that at that time, James’s
mother was supervising James’s visits with the children. Amber further stated that some
of James’s visits with the children had been “a little bit unstable.” Amber explained that
during one visit in January, “[James’s] mom had to make him leave due to him kicking a
LEGO box across the house and breaking it, and screaming and yelling at his parents in
front of our children, scaring our children.” Amber also explained that in December, on
the Saturday after Christmas, James’s mother wanted to bring the children to Amber’s
house and drop them off but that James refused to let his mother do so. James’s mother
therefore told Amber that she needed to come and pick up the children. Amber stated
that when she arrived to pick up the children, James wanted to talk to her, but she could
tell that he was “enraged.” Amber thus told James that she would speak to him at another
time and that she was just going to get the children and leave. Amber testified that James
replied, “No, you’re not,” and then told her that he was “going to beat the F out of [her].”
At that time, James slammed her up against the car by her throat and nearly punched her
in the face. Amber explained that James did not punch her only because his mother came
outside and had him get off her. Amber stated that she waited to call the authorities
about the incident until the next day because the children came outside directly after the
incident, and she had to “put on a smile” and go home with them.
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 11
Additionally, James testified at the final hearing about a text message that he had
sent to Amber on December 31 before he went to Montana to see someone that he knew
from the military. In the text message, James stated, “[T]here is something messed up in
my head.” James explained at the final hearing that that “something” was addiction.
James went on to testify that he had “not really had a big issue” but that he would
sometimes still “get the trigger, the itch, or whatever.” James stated that after having his
children “kept from [him] and [his] money stolen from [him], the trigger started
happening more,” so he decided to go to Montana to help fix the issues that he was
having.
Considering the foregoing evidence, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion by deviating from the standard possession order. See Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d at
451 (“The trial court is given wide latitude in determining the best interests of a minor
child.”); N.P.M., 509 S.W.3d at 564–65 (explaining that trial court is given wide latitude
in determining child’s best interest because it is in better position to determine what will
be in child’s best interest since it faced parties and their witnesses, observed their
demeanor, and had opportunity to evaluate claims made by each parent). James’s third
and fifth issues are therefore overruled.
Issue Four
In his fourth issue, James contends that the trial court’s conduct brought into
question the impartiality and fairness of the proceeding.
As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must
show that, among other things, the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 12
request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for the ruling sought from the trial
court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the
specific grounds were apparent from the context. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A). Even
constitutional complaints must be raised in the trial court for them to be preserved for
appellate review. In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707, 710–11 (Tex. 2003); In re K.A.S., 131 S.W.3d
215, 230–31 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied).
Amber notes that James never filed any motion to recuse the trial judge before
entry of the final decree of divorce in this case. See David v. West, 433 S.W.3d 101, 107–08
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (holding complaint that trial judge
should have been recused was waived by failing to raise it in trial court). Nor have we
found anything in the record showing that, before entry of the final decree of divorce,
James made any objection about the trial judge’s conduct.
But there is an exception to the preservation rules for certain “fundamental”
errors, including “those instances in which error directly and adversely affects the
interest of the public generally, as that interest is declared by the statutes or Constitution
of our State.” Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 577 (Tex. 2006). Accordingly,
the Texas Supreme Court has recognized that, in jury trials, claims of judicial bias would
not be waived by a failure to object in the trial court if “the conduct or comment cannot
be rendered harmless by proper instruction.” Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237,
241 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam) (citing State v. Wilemon, 393 S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex. 1965)).
Additionally, in some circumstances, a complaint regarding judicial conduct during a
bench trial may also be raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., In re L.S., No. 02-17-
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 13
00132-CV, 2017 WL 4172584, at *20 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (holding that trial court’s “conduct, as clearly shown on the face of the record,
revealed a level of bias and partiality that harmed Father by depriving him of his right to
a fair trial before an impartial fact-finder and constituted fundamental error”). Therefore,
even though James failed to object about the trial judge’s conduct in the trial court, we
must address his complaint about such conduct if such conduct constituted fundamental
error. See id.; see also In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *18–19 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).
James complains about the following conduct of the trial judge in this case. First,
James asserts that during the trial, the trial judge “made four vocalizations in the nature
of stating he knew where the information was headed and he need not hear more on the
matter.” The record shows that Amber testified first at trial and that Amber then called
James to testify. During Amber’s counsel’s examination of James, the following exchange
took place:
[Amber’s Counsel]: Your Honor, if I can, again, I’m going to share
an exhibit real quick. It’s going to be Petitioner’s Exhibit 3. I’m skipping 2
intentionally at this point.
THE COURT: Okay. Let’s pick it up, [Amber’s Counsel], but go
ahead.
[Amber’s Counsel]: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I’ve got the gist of where you’re going.
[Amber’s Counsel]: Yes, sir.
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 14
Thereafter, during James’s counsel’s examination of James, the following exchange took
place:
[James’s Counsel]: And, Judge, I’m going to ask for permission to
share my screen, again, if you don’t mind.
THE COURT: Okay. Yes, go ahead. You’ve still got it. Let’s pick it
up a little bit, [James’s Counsel].
[James’s Counsel]: Yes, sir.
Once James had finished testifying, the following exchange then took place:
THE COURT: [Amber’s Counsel], any other witnesses?
[Amber’s Counsel]: I’m going to call Mrs. Vaughn, again for just a
brief rebuttal, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I’ve got a - - Counsel, I’ve got a gist of the
issues in this case, so let’s make it very brief, [Amber’s Counsel].
[Amber’s Counsel]: I will make it very brief, Your Honor.
James next complains that the trial judge prevented him from calling a witness
“with a state certification and ample experience” to testify and that the trial judge only
“allotted a predetermined time of 10 minutes for testimony between both sets of counsel.”
The record shows, however, that once Amber rested, the following exchange took place:
THE COURT: [James’s Counsel], do you rest?
[James’s Counsel]: Judge, I have my client’s mother, whose role is
supervising visits, ready to testify. I understand the Court wants to speed
these proceedings along. So, if the Court wants to hear her testimony, she’s
ready. If not, then I would also rest.
THE COURT: Okay. The gist of her testimony is that she’s still
willing to supervise the visitations. Is that it?
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 15
[James’s Counsel]: No, Your Honor. The gist of her testimony
would be to rebut the need for them to be supervised.
THE COURT: I’m going to allow ten minutes, for purposes of the
record. . . .
James’s mother testified, and the trial court then inquired whether James had any other
witnesses. James’s counsel replied, “No, Your Honor. At this time, we rest.” Therefore,
the record does not show that James was prevented from calling a witness to testify.
Finally, James asserts that he “had already lost all confidence in the judicial
integrity of this case” because after the initial court hearing, the trial judge “stated
something to the effect of ‘I am sorry for the circumstances that led us to this decision’,
after asking [him] about the time he served in the military.” The record shows that at the
temporary orders hearing, testimony was elicited from James that in May 2019, he was
serving in the Air Force at the rank of Staff Sergeant. James admitted, however, that
around that time, he had used heroin, was arrested, and was demoted to the rank of
Airman Basic. James nevertheless testified that in December 2019, after serving for
approximately six years, he received a general discharge from the Air Force under
honorable conditions.
Subsequently, just before the trial court made its ruling on the temporary orders,
the following exchange occurred between the trial court and James:
THE COURT: Thank you, [James’s counsel]. Mr. Vaughn, what did
you do in the Air Force?
[James]: I worked with explosives.
THE COURT: DOD?
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 16
[James]: And I worked on munitions, all the way from bullets up to
bombs, that went on airplanes.
THE COURT: Very well. I was Security Forces for six years. I got
out as a Staff Sergeant.
[James]: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I’m sorry about your situation with the Air Force. You
may have a seat.
. . . The United States Supreme Court . . . has determined that
“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
partiality motion,” and opinions the judge forms during a trial do not
necessitate recusal “unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or
antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus, judicial
remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or
even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support
a bias or partiality challenge.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114
S.Ct. 1147, [1157,] 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994)). Further, “[n]ot establishing bias
or partiality . . . are expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance,
and even anger. . . . A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom
administration—even a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts
at courtroom administration—remain immune.” [Id.] at 555–56, 114 S.Ct.
[at 1157]. In short, a trial court has the inherent power to control the
disposition of cases “with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,
and for litigants.” Landis v. N[.] Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, [166,]
81 L.Ed. 153 (1936).
Similarly, Texas courts have held that “the discretion vested in the
trial court over the conduct of a trial is great.” Schroeder v. Brandon, 141 Tex.
317, [325,] 172 S.W.2d 488, 491 (1943); see Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20, 38
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied). A trial court has the
authority to express itself in exercising this broad discretion. Bott v. Bott,
962 S.W.2d 626, 631 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ).
Further, a trial court may properly intervene to maintain control in the
courtroom, to expedite the trial, and to prevent what it considers to be a
waste of time. Hoggett v. Brown, 971 S.W.2d 472, 495 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.); Great Glob[.] Assurance Co. v. Keltex Props., Inc.,
904 S.W.2d 771, 777 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi[–Edinburg] 1995, no writ).
Dow Chem. Co., 46 S.W.3d at 240–41 (citations omitted).
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 17
Applying these principles to this case and considering James’s allegations against
the trial judge in the context of the entire record, we conclude that the trial judge’s
conduct was proper and did not amount to “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that
would make fair judgment impossible.” See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555, 114 S.Ct. at 1157.
James’s fourth issue is therefore overruled.
Issue Six
James states his sixth issue as follows: “Are criminal laws and judgment orders
being violated currently?” James goes on to complain in the “Argument” section of his
appellant’s brief about “ongoing interference” by the trial court and “court
administration.”
We liberally construe both the rules of appellate procedure and the briefs of pro se
parties. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9; Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex–Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423,
427 (Tex. 2004). But we may not speculate as to the substance of the specific issues
asserted by an appellant. Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2004, pet. denied). And we may not perform an independent review of the record and
the law to determine if the trial court erred. Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex.
App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). Pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules as
licensed attorneys. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978).
An appellant’s brief “must 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). Here, James’s brief does not contain any citations to the record to support
his sixth issue, nor does his brief contain any citations to specific authority through which
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 18
we might review this issue. In fact, we cannot identify from appellant’s brief the specific
ruling(s) by the trial court of which James complains in this issue. We therefore hold that
James has waived this issue by inadequately briefing it. See Valadez, 238 S.W.3d at 845.
Pending Motions
James’s “Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Protective Order,” included in his
appellant’s brief, is dismissed as moot.
Amber’s “Motion to Require Payment of Costs Pursuant to Rule 145 of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 20 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,” filed on
November 19, 2021, is denied to the extent that it seeks different relief from the orders
that have already been issued in this appeal.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s final decree of divorce.
MATT JOHNSON
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray*,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
*(Chief Justice Gray concurs.)
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed October 24, 2024
[CV06]
In re Marriage of Vaughn Page 19