In the Interest of Q.C. and P.C.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Despite the lengthy preparation time, her opening brief’s purported legal analysis—which advanced six appellate issues—spanned just five pages with zero record references and a citation to a nonexistent case. Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). ... Three months later, on the day Father’s brief was due, Mother moved for leave to file an overhauled amended brief. Mother conceded that her original opening brief had not complied with the Rules of Appellate Procedure and she stated that her amended opening brief “correct[ed the] technical deficiencies, incorporate[d] accurate citations to the record and legal authority, and present[ed] the substantive arguments in a clear, organized manner.” ... But as it turned out, Mother’s amended brief was nearly three times the length of her original brief and it raised new and different appellate issues. ... Furthermore, Mother’s amended opening brief cited to portions of case law that did not exist and quoted statements nowhere to be found in the cited case law. ... Mother cannot raise new appellate issues beyond those in her original opening brief, and even if she had obtained leave to do so, the eight issues raised in her amended opening brief lack merit. Mother’s pending motions are denied, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Authorities cited in the passage: Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) · ERC Midstream LLC v. American Midstream Partners, LP, 497 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016)