Fourteenth Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Pro Se Suit Seeking Discharge of Child Support Arrears

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Boatman, 14-25-00065-CV, February 03, 2026.

On appeal from the 125th District Court of Harris County.

Synopsis

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a pro se suit against the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) seeking the discharge of child support arrears, holding that the OAG’s statutory authority as the State’s Title IV-D agency is well-settled. The court determined that an Assistant Attorney General’s identification of their representative capacity on the record and in pleadings satisfies Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12, and further held that procedural notice defects do not constitute reversible error absent a showing of harm.

Relevance to Family Law

For practitioners, this case underscores the high bar for challenging the OAG’s representative authority in child support enforcement and modification proceedings. While Rule 12 is a powerful tool to challenge an attorney’s right to act, the Fourteenth Court clarifies that the OAG’s broad statutory standing under the Family Code provides a near-impenetrable shield against such challenges when the appearing attorney is a duly appointed Assistant Attorney General. Furthermore, the opinion serves as a reminder that in family law appeals, technical violations of service and notice requirements under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are subject to a harm analysis; a party who appears and participates in a hearing despite notice defects will rarely secure a reversal on due process grounds.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Appellant Michael Jimmy Rodrigues, appearing pro se, filed suit against the OAG seeking to discharge his child support obligations and claiming over $500,000 in damages. His theory of recovery rested on a “Certificate of Non-Response,” alleging that because the OAG had not replied to his private correspondence, the child support matter was “settled and closed” through an administrative default. The OAG responded with a plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity and a motion to dismiss the suit as frivolous under Texas Family Code § 231.016. In response, Rodrigues filed a motion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12, challenging the authority of the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) to represent the OAG. During the trial court hearing, the AAG identified herself as a duly appointed representative of the State, referencing her credentials and statutory authority. The trial court denied the Rule 12 motion and granted the OAG’s jurisdictional and dismissal motions.

Issues Decided

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Appellant’s Rule 12 motion to show authority where the OAG’s attorney provided oral and written notice of her representative status.
2. Whether an alleged failure of service of the OAG’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss constitutes reversible error when the Appellant appeared and participated in the hearing.
3. Whether the Appellant waived his claims regarding an “administrative discharge” of child support arrears through inadequate briefing.

Rules Applied

• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12: Allows a party to challenge an opposing attorney’s authority to act; the challenged attorney bears the burden of proof to show sufficient authority to prosecute or defend the suit.
• Texas Family Code §§ 102.007, 231.001, & 231.109: Designates the OAG as the Title IV-D agency with broad statutory standing to participate in child support actions and the authority to employ attorneys to represent the State’s interests.
• Texas Government Code § 402.029: Requires the OAG to provide notice of the attorney’s contact information when appearing in child support cases.
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1(a): Establishes the harmless error rule, providing that no judgment may be reversed unless the error complained of probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment.
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1: Mandates that an appellant’s brief contain clear and concise arguments for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record.

Application

The legal narrative in this appeal centers on the interplay between procedural challenges and the statutory mandates of the Title IV-D agency. The court first addressed the Rule 12 challenge. Under Rule 12, the burden rests on the challenged attorney to demonstrate authority. The Fourteenth Court noted that the OAG’s role is not merely a matter of private contract but is established by a comprehensive statutory framework. The AAG satisfied the burden by identifying herself on the record, citing Government Code Chapter 402, and referencing her official credentials. Because the OAG’s statutory authority is “well-settled,” the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to require further “sworn evidence” of the AAG’s assignment to the case.

Regarding the due process claims, the court focused on the lack of prejudice. While the Appellant alleged a lack of service of the OAG’s dispositive motions, the record reflected that he had filed multiple responses to those very motions and had appeared at the hearing to argue his position. Applying the harm analysis of TRAP 44.1(a), the court concluded that even if service had been technically deficient, it did not hinder the Appellant’s ability to present his case. Finally, the court applied the briefing waiver doctrine to the Appellant’s “administrative discharge” theory, noting that he failed to provide any relevant legal authority to support the idea that child support arrears can be discharged through a unilateral non-response process.

Holding

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 12 motion because the OAG’s statutory authority to represent the State’s interests in child support matters is established by law, and the appearing AAG sufficiently demonstrated her authority through written filings and oral representations at the hearing.

The court further held that alleged defects in service do not warrant reversal when the complaining party has actual notice, files responses, and participates in the hearing, as such circumstances preclude a showing of harm under TRAP 44.1(a).

Finally, the court held that any claims regarding the “administrative discharge” of child support obligations were waived due to the Appellant’s failure to provide substantive legal argument or relevant authority in his brief.

Practical Application

For family law litigators, this opinion reinforces that challenging the OAG’s right to appear in Title IV-D cases is an uphill battle. If a practitioner intends to use Rule 12, they must be prepared to distinguish the appearing attorney’s role from the broad statutory authority granted under Family Code Chapter 231. Furthermore, when defending against a pro se litigant’s claims of “non-service” or “lack of notice,” practitioners should meticulously document the pro se party’s participation, filings, and presence at hearings to build a “harmless error” record.

Checklists

Defending a Rule 12 Motion to Show Authority (OAG/State Agency Context)

• Confirm that all pleadings include the attorney’s name, address, telephone, and facsimile numbers per Tex. Gov’t Code § 402.029.
• Prepare a statement for the record identifying the attorney as a duly appointed Assistant Attorney General.
• Cite the specific provisions of the Texas Family Code (e.g., §§ 102.007, 231.001) that grant the agency standing in the litigation.
• Reference prior appellate history (if any) involving the same parties where authority was previously established.

Insulating a Judgment Against Notice/Due Process Challenges

• Ensure the record reflects the date and time of the hearing.
• Document the opposing party’s appearance in the reporter’s record.
• Identify all responsive pleadings filed by the opposing party that address the merits of the motion in question.
• In the final order, include recitals stating that the parties appeared and were given an opportunity to be heard.

Citation

Rodrigues v. Off. of the Att’y Gen., No. 14-25-00065-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 3, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View Full Opinion Here

~~7944b5b1-bc06-4905-9a6a-47b47103e9d3~~