In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00057-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF D.L. AND X.L., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 324th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 324-727406-22

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION After receiving pro se Appellant’s brief on May 15, 2023, we notified Appellant that her brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i) and 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k). See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i), 38.1(a)– (k). We directed Appellant to file an amended brief complying with the appellate rules no later than May 26, 2023, and warned her that the failure to do so could result in either the waiver of noncomplying points or the striking of her noncompliant brief and dismissal of her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3; 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1. Despite our warning, Appellant never filed an amended brief.

“We liberally construe pro se briefs, but to ensure fairness in our treatment of all litigants, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require pro se litigants to follow the applicable laws and rules of procedure.” Branch v. Fannie Mae, No. 02-11-00355-CV, 2012 WL 3030525, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 26, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). Because Appellant has not followed the applicable laws and rules of procedure despite being given the opportunity to do so, we strike Appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam Delivered: July 13, 2023