In the Interest of K.D., P.D., V.D., and E.D., Children v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-24-00111-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN THE INTEREST OF K.D., P.D., V.D., AND E.D., CHILDREN ON APPEAL FROM THE 444TH DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva Appellant Ramon M. Diana, proceeding pro se, appeals: (1) a final order in a suit modifying the parent-child relationship; (2) an order enforcing the division of property by contempt; and (3) an order enforcing child support. 1 We affirm. 1 This appeal arises from trial court cause number 2022-DCL-02849 in the 444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. We previously granted mandamus relief in favor of Diana in a separate original  I. BACKGROUND Diana and appellee Elvia Karina Cordova-Diana are divorced with four minor children. While their divorce decree was originally entered in Bexar County, Texas, the parties’ ongoing disputes arising from the decree were transferred to Cameron County, Texas. In Cameron County, Cordova-Diana filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship, a petition seeking to enforce the division of the marital property as ordered by the parties’ final decree of divorce, and a motion for the enforcement of child support. Diana filed competing pleadings. During the litigation, the trial court appointed an amicus attorney, Angela P. Nix, to assist the trial court with the matters at issue in the case. After an evidentiary hearing to the bench, the trial court found in favor of Cordova-Diana on all matters. This appeal ensued. II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS We have previously addressed and issued rulings on numerous motions during the pendency of this appeal; however, we carried several motions or specific requests for relief with the case to consider them in conjunction with the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, at the present time, we address Cordova-Diana’s motion to dismiss the appeal, the parties’ requests for sanctions against each other, and Diana’s motion to take proceeding arising from this same matter. See In re Diana, No. 13-24-00287-CV, 2024 WL 3221597, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 28, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Diana also filed a separate petition for writ of mandamus regarding other orders issued in this same trial court cause number which is docketed in our appellate cause number 13-25-00236-CV. By separate memorandum opinion issued this same day, we have denied relief in that original proceeding. See In re Diana, No. 13-25-00236- CV, 2025 WL _____, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 23, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 2 judicial notice of various documents. 2 In short, we deny all pending requests and motions. A. Diana’s Brief Cordova-Diana asserts that Diana “has flagrantly violated the briefing rules and has failed to correct [] numerous defects after being given ample opportunity to do so.” Thus, she requests that we dismiss the appeal or affirm the trial court’s rulings. As Cordova-Diana notes, Diana filed a brief on June 24, 2024, which was substantially noncompliant with the appellate rules. He filed a first amended brief on June 28, 2024, which was again substantially noncompliant. He filed a second amended brief on July 9, 2024, which provides the basis for Cordova-Diana’s contentions. Diana has represented himself in the proceedings below and in this appeal. We are required to hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys; thus, pro se litigants must comply with all applicable laws and rules of procedure. Zhao v. Sea Rock Inc., 659 S.W.3d 119, 128 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. denied); Manning v. Johnson, 642 S.W.3d 871, 884 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2021, no pet.). Otherwise, pro se litigants “would be given an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel.” Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978). “The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require adequate briefing.” ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 880 (Tex. 2010); see Bertucci v. 2 Specifically, Cordova-Diana filed a “Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions” and a “Response To [Diana’s] Emergency Motion For Temporary Relief To Stay Further Filings Pending Appeal” which included a request for sanctions against Diana; Diana filed a “Response To [Cordova-Diana’s] Response To Emergency Motion For Temporary Relief” which included a request for sanctions against Cordova-Diana; Diana filed a “Motion To Strike [Cordova-Diana’s] Brief, Request For Sanctions,