MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] Rajesh Gupta (“Father”) appeals the Johnson Superior Courts final decree dissolving his marriage to Vartika Gupta (“Mother”). Father purports to raise several issues on appeal. However, by separate motion, we grant Mothers motion to strike Fathers appellate brief. And we dismiss Fathers appeal for flagrant violations of our appellate rules.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Father and Mother were married in 2008 and have one child together (“Child”). In January 2022, Mother filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded Mother sole legal and physical custody of Child, with Father exercising parenting time. The trial court ordered Father to pay child support in the amount of $97 per week. The division of the marital estate was uncomplicated. The parties own two residences, and the court awarded one residence to each party. In addition, each party received a vehicle, and each party is responsible for his/her own debts. Father filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Fathers restated issues on appeal are that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded Mother custody of Child and when it divided the marital estate. And Father argues that the trial court miscalculated his child support obligation. However, he does not specify any procedural grounds for reversing the court or a valid standard of review we should use.
[4] As he did below, Father has chosen to proceed pro se. It is well-settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). This means that pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so. Id. at 983-84. These consequences include waiver for failure to present cogent argument on appeal. Id. at 984. While we prefer to decide issues on the merits, where the appellants noncompliance with appellate rules is so substantial as to impede our consideration of the issues, we may deem the alleged errors waived. Id. We will not become “ ‘an advocate for a party, or address arguments that are inappropriate or too poorly developed or expressed to be understood.’ ” Id. (quoting Perry v. Anonymous Physician 1, 25 N.E.3d 103, 106 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, cert. denied).
[5] Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) lists the requirements for the argument section of an appellants brief, stating in pertinent part,
Argument. This section shall contain the appellants contentions why the trial court or Administrative Agency committed reversible error.
(a) The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on, in accordance with Rule 22.
(b) The argument must include for each issue a concise statement of the applicable standard of review; this statement may appear in the discussion of each issue or under a separate heading placed before the discussion of the issues. In addition, the argument must include a brief statement of the procedural and substantive facts necessary for consideration of the issues presented on appeal, including a statement of how the issues relevant to the appeal were raised and resolved by any Administrative Agency or trial court.
[6] Mother has moved to strike Fathers brief on appeal, and we grant that motion by separate order. As Mother points out, Fathers brief is rife with significant violations of our Appellate Rules. For instance, as noted above, Father fails to provide a standard of review in support of his arguments. More significantly, Father fails to cite any legal authority in support of his arguments. Fathers brief is merely an attempt to relitigate the facts considered by the trial court. Given our deferential standard of review,
1
we will not reweigh the evidence on appeal. Neither will we research relevant case law to make cogent argument for Father. Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of Fathers appeal.
[7] In sum, Fathers failure to comply with the Appellate Rules, and especially to provide cogent argument, impedes our ability to provide a meaningful review of his contentions. As a result, we conclude that he has waived all issues in this appeal. Dickes v. Felger, 981 N.E.2d 559, 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (“A party waives an issue where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record.”)
[8] Dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Our standard of review for the issues of custody and the division of the marital estate is an abuse of discretion standard, with a trial court enjoying especially broad discretion in family law matters. See In re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. 1993). Our standard of review for the issue of child support is clear error. See In re Paternity of C.B., 112 N.E.3d 746, 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Father does not frame the issues he raises on appeal in the context of those standards of review, and we will not make those arguments for him.
Mathias, Judge.
Riley, J., and Felix, J., concur.