Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef, 06-25-00078-CV, February 06, 2026.
On appeal from the 123rd District Court of Panola County.
Synopsis
The Sixth Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se appeal for want of prosecution after the appellant repeatedly failed to submit a brief that complied with the mandatory requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. Despite receiving a detailed deficiency notice and an opportunity to cure, the appellant’s subsequent filing remained inadequate, justifying dismissal under Rules 38.8 and 42.3.
Relevance to Family Law
In SAPCR and divorce litigation, pro se appellants are a frequent reality. This decision reinforces a critical tactical boundary: appellate courts will not act as advocates for self-represented parties by overlooking systemic briefing failures. For family law practitioners representing appellees, this case underscores the importance of monitoring for Rule 38.1 compliance as a mechanism for achieving finality without the need for an exhaustive—and expensive—substantive response to a legally untethered brief. It serves as a reminder that the “liberal construction” of briefs has limits, particularly when a party fails to correct identified deficiencies.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The appellant, Nickolas G. Kjeldergaard, initiated an appeal following a trial court order in a case involving the interest of a child, C.K.S. After the clerk’s and reporter’s records were filed in late 2025, the appellant submitted a document intended to serve as his opening brief. Upon review, the Sixth Court of Appeals determined the document was structurally and substantively deficient under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. On January 6, 2026, the Court issued a formal notice to the appellant, providing a detailed explanation of how the filing failed to meet the requirements of Rule 38.1. The Court granted the appellant a specific deadline to file a corrected brief and warned that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeal. While the appellant did file a second document labeled as a “corrected” brief, the Court found that this filing likewise failed to adhere to the mandatory standards of appellate briefing.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether an appeal is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution when a pro se appellant, after being provided with specific notice of deficiencies and an opportunity to cure, fails to file a brief that satisfies the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1.
Rules Applied
The Court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, which mandates the specific contents of an appellate brief, including a table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, issues presented, and a clear, cited argument. The Court further invoked Rule 38.8, which governs the failure of an appellant to file a brief, and Rule 42.3, which provides the authority for an appellate court to involuntarily dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a court order or notice.
Application
The Court’s analysis centered on the procedural obligations of an appellant to present a coherent legal challenge. While Texas courts often allow leeway for pro se litigants to ensure access to justice, the Sixth Court of Appeals emphasized that the rules of procedure are not mere suggestions. By issuing the January 6 deficiency letter, the Court fulfilled its duty to allow the appellant to rectify technical errors. However, when the appellant’s “corrected” brief arrived, it still lacked the necessary legal structure and record citations required by Rule 38.1. The Court determined that it could not perform an independent search of the record for error or construct legal arguments for the appellant. Consequently, because the appellant failed to provide a brief that enabled judicial review, the appeal was ripe for dismissal under the Court’s discretionary power to manage its docket and enforce compliance with the Rules.
Holding
The Court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court reasoned that the appellant’s persistent failure to comply with the briefing requirements, even after being provided with a detailed roadmap for correction, rendered the appeal functionally abandoned.
The Court further concluded that the second filing did not constitute a “brief” within the meaning of the law. Without a compliant brief, there were no issues properly presented for the Court’s consideration, necessitating dismissal pursuant to Rules 38.8 and 42.3.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this case is a reminder that the appellate process begins and ends with strict adherence to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. If you are defending a favorable trial court ruling against a pro se appellant, do not rush to file a substantive appellee’s brief if the appellant’s filing is a “document” in name only. Often, the most cost-effective strategy for your client is to allow the Court’s clerk to identify the deficiencies. If the appellant fails to cure those deficiencies, the appeal can be disposed of on procedural grounds, saving your client the fees associated with briefing the merits of a meritless appeal.
Checklists
Evaluating an Opposing Pro Se Brief
- Check for the presence of all mandatory sections required by TRAP 38.1 (Table of Contents, Authorities, Statement of the Case, etc.).
- Verify that every factual assertion in the brief is supported by a specific reference to the clerk’s or reporter’s record.
- Determine if the “Issues Presented” section actually identifies legal errors rather than general grievances.
- Assess whether the argument section contains citations to relevant case law or statutes.
Responding to Non-Compliant Briefs
- Monitor the appellate court’s docket for a formal deficiency notice.
- If a deficiency notice is issued, calculate the appellant’s deadline to cure and wait for the “corrected” filing before proceeding.
- If the corrected brief remains deficient, consider filing a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution or a motion to strike the brief under TRAP 38.8 and 42.3.
- Remind the court in any motion that while pro se briefs are to be construed liberally, the court cannot act as an advocate for a party.
Citation
In the Interest of C.K.S., a Child, No. 06-25-00078-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Texarkana Feb. 6, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~f6ec1473-d2a2-447b-9657-b62702ec0653~~
Share this content: