Fifth District Dismisses Appeal After Failure to Cure Briefing Defects and Privacy Violations

In the Interest of S.A.M. and C.J.M., Children, 05-25-00875-CV, February 17, 2026.

On appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal after the appellant failed to file a corrected brief following a court order striking the original for non-compliance with briefing and privacy rules. Specifically, the appellant failed to redact the names and birthdates of minor children and ignored a court-mandated deadline to cure these procedural and substantive defects.

Relevance to Family Law

In family law litigation, the protection of a minor’s identity is not merely a courtesy; it is a jurisdictional and procedural mandate under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. This case serves as a stark reminder that failure to adhere to privacy requirements—specifically Rule 9.9 regarding sensitive data—is a fatal error that can lead to the summary dismissal of an appeal, regardless of the merits concerning custody or property division. For practitioners, this underscores that the appellate court’s patience for “sensitive data” violations is nonexistent, as these errors jeopardize the safety and privacy of the children involved in the suit.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The underlying dispute involved a child custody matter originating from the 303rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County. Following a final judgment, the appellant sought appellate review by filing an initial brief with the Fifth District Court of Appeals. On December 19, 2025, the Court issued an order striking that brief, identifying numerous procedural defects under Rules 9 and 38. Most critically, the brief contained the unredacted names and birthdates of the minor children, S.A.M. and C.J.M. The Court granted the appellant until January 8, 2026, to file a compliant amended brief and explicitly warned that a failure to do so would result in dismissal. The deadline passed without any filing or communication from the appellant.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the appellate court should dismiss an appeal under Rule 38.9(a) when an appellant fails to cure significant briefing defects, including violations of privacy rules regarding sensitive data, after being given formal notice and a specific opportunity to amend.

Rules Applied

The Court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9, which governs the protection of “sensitive data” in filed documents, including the names and birthdates of minors. Additionally, the Court applied Rules 38.1 and 38.8 regarding the requirements of an appellant’s brief and the consequences of failing to file a compliant brief. Finally, the Court invoked Rule 38.9(a), which empowers the court to strike a non-compliant brief and dismiss the appeal if the party fails to timely file a corrected version.

Application

The court’s analysis was rooted in the necessity of procedural compliance and the protection of minor children. When the appellant initially filed their brief, it was immediately flagged not just for technical briefing errors, but for a substantive violation of the privacy protections afforded to children under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. By including birthdates and full names, the appellant failed to treat the record with the requisite confidentiality required in SAPCR (Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship) appeals.

The court exercised its discretion to strike the brief and provided a clear window for correction. Because the appellant allowed the January 8 deadline to lapse without attempting to file a compliant brief or requesting an extension, the court determined that the appellant had failed to prosecute the appeal according to the rules. The legal narrative here is one of waiver through inaction; the court cannot and will not advocate for a party who refuses to follow the basic privacy mandates that protect the subjects of the litigation.

Holding

The Court held that dismissal was the appropriate sanction pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(a). Because the appellant failed to comply with the court’s order to file a brief that met the standards of Rules 9 and 38, the appeal could not proceed.

The Court further held that the failure to protect sensitive data—specifically the identities of minor children—warrants striking the offending instrument. When such an error is not cured after notice, the court is within its authority to terminate the appeal without further notice to the parties.

Practical Application

This dismissal highlights the “zero-tolerance” policy of the Dallas Court of Appeals regarding sensitive data in family law cases. Litigators must treat the redaction process as a core component of appellate advocacy rather than a clerical afterthought. Even if the merits of a custody appeal are strong, a failure to protect the identities of the children will lead to a summary end of the case. Furthermore, this case demonstrates that once a brief is struck for Rule 38 defects, the timeline to cure is strictly enforced. Practitioners should use this as a cautionary tale to implement multi-step internal reviews of every filing to ensure compliance with the “sensitive data” requirements under Rule 9.

Checklists

Protecting Sensitive Data under Rule 9.9

• Review all appendices and the body of the brief for full names of minor children.
• Use initials for all minors throughout every document filed with the appellate court.
• Redact specific birthdates, leaving only the year if the age is relevant to the legal argument.
• Ensure social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and bank account information are fully redacted.
• Verify that the “Sensitive Data” notice is prominently displayed on the front page of the filing if any such data is included.

Curing Briefing Defects

• Calendar the deadline for an amended brief immediately upon receipt of a Rule 38.9 notice or order to strike.
• Cross-reference the court’s “Notice of Defect” against the Table of Contents, Citations, and Appendix.
• If a brief is struck, treat the amended filing as a new instrument rather than a “patch job” to ensure all Rule 38 requirements are met.
• File a motion for extension of time early if the redaction or correction process requires more time than the court initially allotted.

Citation

In the Interest of S.A.M. and C.J.M., Children, No. 05-25-00875-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 17, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View the full opinion here.

~~8164ebca-413d-4648-b19c-4a635b6112b6~~