In the Interest of Gabriela Angelica Reyes, Miguel Reyes and Daisy J. Reyes, Children v. the State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§ No. 08-22-00085-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF § Appeal from the
G.A.R., M.R. and D.J.R., § 388th Judicial District Court
Children. § of El Paso County, Texas
§ (TC# 2006CM6082)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se appellant Miguel Bernadino Reyes appeals the trial court’s order confirming a child
support arrearage and denial of his modification request to reduce ordered child support. Among
other claims, Appellant asserts on appeal that he sustained loss of income during certain periods,
but those losses were not considered in the trial court’s calculation of the amount of child support
arrearage, medical support arrearage, and interest owed. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2021, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) filed a suit for modification
of support order and motion to confirm support arrearage. The OAG alleged there were three
children subject to the suit—G.A.R. (born Jan. 1997), M.R. (born Oct. 1998), and D.J.R. (born
Feb. 2003). Appellant is the father of all three children, and Norma Angelica Salazar de Reyes is
their mother. At the time the OAG filed its motion, all three children had reached the age of
eighteen.
The OAG’s motion stated that on November 20, 2017, the trial court ordered Appellant to
pay $300 each month in child support and $133 each month in medical support. The OAG then
alleged that Appellant failed to make certain payments of the court ordered support and, as a result,
owed $4,343.10 in child support arrearage and $2,065.53 in medical support arrearage. Appellant
responded by entering a general denial with an attached exhibit containing a narrative explanation
of his own circumstances and also about his daughter, D.J.R. He claimed he had sustained a drastic
change in income and D.J.R. had moved out of her mother’s house at the age of seventeen. D.J.R.
reached the age of eighteen in February of 2021, months prior to the OAG’s filing of the instant
suit.
The trial court, by the Title IV-D associate judge, held a final hearing via Zoom. The
hearing was audio recorded, but no transcription was thereafter made by an official court reporter.
At the conclusion of trial, the associate judge signed an order confirming arrearages in the amount
of $3,372.52 for unpaid child support and $1,632.60 for unpaid medical support. The associate
judge rendered judgment in favor of the OAG and ordered Appellant to pay $100 each month
towards the child support arrearage and $50 each month towards the medical support arrearage.
Lastly, the trial court otherwise denied modification of the support order.
Appellant now files this appeal.
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
On review, we are instructed to construe points of error liberally and with patience, “to
obtain a just, fair and equitable adjudication of the rights of the litigants.” Sterner v. Marathon Oil
Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989); Palmer v. Office of the Attorney Gen., 656 S.W.3d 640,
2
644 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, no pet.). Even still, it is well-settled that a pro se party must
nonetheless comply with all applicable procedural rules. Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845
(Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). This requirement ensures basic fairness such that pro se
litigants do not gain an unfair advantage over other parties who are represented by counsel. Id.Liberally interpreting Appellant’s complaints, he challenges the trial court’s order of
November 20, 2017, to the extent he claims the court failed to account for his drastic loss of income
between April 2020 and September 2020, and his minimal income between September 2020 and
March 2021. Additionally, Appellant contends D.J.R. had “a child of her own” and “emancipated
herself” by moving out of her mother’s home at age seventeen.
In what we interpret as his requested relief, Appellant contends this Court “should modify
an order that provides for the support of a child,” because D.J.R. “was not living with either
parent.” Second, Appellant asks the court to “remove the Attorney General from [his] case” and
requests he “deal directly with the court.” He asserts misrepresentation and abusive power “has
since created a barrier of distrust.” Next, Appellant states: “If child in question is emancipated at
age seventeen[,] I ask the Court to remove the Court Order for Withholding from Earnings from
Employment immediately.” Lastly, Appellant states: “If child in question is not emancipated then
I ask the Court for both parents to pay child support to D.J.R. accordingly to the income made by
each parent that last year.”
The OAG filed a responsive brief asserting the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Appellant’s requested modification because there was no current child support to modify
as the youngest child had turned eighteen. Additionally, the OAG asserts that Appellant failed to
support his remaining arguments with citations to authorities and he failed to supply the Court with
a reporter’s record.
3
III. APPELLATE RECORD
At the outset, we address the status of the appellate record in this case. This matter was
heard by the Title IV-D associate judge of the 388th Judicial District Court in El Paso County.
While the case remained pending and we awaited the filing of the reporter’s record, we received a
letter from the official court reporter for the 388th District Court stating it was her understanding
the associate judge did not have a court reporter and there was no record of an assigned court
reporter on the date of the hearing. In response, we sent a letter to the parties requesting information
on whether a record was taken of the final hearing. When our inquiry drew no response, we notified
the parties that the case would be considered without the benefit of a reporter’s record. The
following day, the OAG informed this Court that the final order entered by the trial court stated
that a record of the proceeding was “made by audio recording,” as no court reporter was provided
for the hearing in question.
In cases where trial proceedings are electronically recorded, the burden remains with an
appellant to have the relevant portions to the issues in his appeal transcribed and filed in the
appellate court as an appendix to appellant’s brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.5(a)(1); see also In re
E.D.M., No. 14-09-00727-CV, 2010 WL 3418211, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug.
31, 2010, no pet.) (mem.op.). Here, our record contains neither an audio recording nor a
transcription of the audio recording as a part of the appellate record. Accordingly, our review on
appeal is limited to the clerk’s record. Moreover, in the absence of a reporter’s record, “an appellate
court must presume the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court’s order.”
Williams v. Am. Tire Co. Inc., 190 S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied).
Construing Appellant’s complaints liberally, he attacks the trial court’s judgment asserting
the amounts of child support should have been modified according to his reported income. He
4
further alleges that child support should have been terminated earlier due to the “emancipation” of
D.J.R. at the age of seventeen. Additionally, he asserts complaints against the OAG in the handling
of his case. These complaints necessarily require our review of the trial court record. Yet, without
a transcription of the electronically recorded trial, we are unable to examine what evidence was
brought before the trial court when it rendered its judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); see also
Marena v. George, No. 14-03-01283-CV, 2004 WL 2340631, at * 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] Oct. 19, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that in the absence of a transcription of the
electronically recorded portion of the trial relevant to the appellant’s arguments, the court could
not determine whether the trial court abused its discretion). Without an adequate record being
supplied by Appellant, we must presume the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s
judgment. 1 Williams, 190 S.W.3d at 803.
Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s multiple issues.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm.
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice
March 21, 2023
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
1
Upon initial filing, the clerk of the Court notified Appellant that his appellant’s brief was not compliant with Rule
38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure. Although Appellant provided a revised brief, that brief remained non-
compliant as it merely cited to Rule 38.1 without otherwise citing to legal authority in support of its claims. TEX. R.
APP. P. 38.1(h), (i).
5