in the Interest of G. N., a Child ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                         NO. 12-17-00262-CV
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    §        APPEAL FROM THE
    IN THE INTEREST OF G.N.,
    §        COUNTY COURT AT LAW
    A CHILD
    §        CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    C.N. appeals the termination of his parental rights. In three issues, he challenges the
    legal sufficiency of the trial court’s termination order. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    C.N. and E.L.1 are the parents of G.N. On August 15, 2016, the Department of Family
    and Protective Services (the Department) filed an original petition for protection of G.N., for
    conservatorship, and for termination of C.N.’s and E.L.’s parental rights. The Department was
    appointed temporary managing conservator of the child, and the parents were appointed
    temporary possessory conservators with limited rights and duties.
    At the conclusion of the trial on the merits, the jury found, by clear and convincing
    evidence, that C.N.’s parental rights should be terminated. The trial court found, by clear and
    convincing evidence, that C.N. had engaged in one or more of the acts or omissions necessary to
    support termination of his parental rights under subsections (D), (E), and (O) of Texas Family
    Code section 161.001(b)(1). The trial court also found that termination of the parent-child
    relationship between C.N. and G.N. was in the child’s best interest. Based on these findings, the
    1
    The trial court found that E.L., the mother, executed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of voluntary
    relinquishment of parental rights to G.N., found that termination between E.L. and G.N. was in the child’s best
    interest, and ordered that the parent-child relationship between E.L. and G.N. be terminated. The mother is not a
    party to this appeal.
    trial court ordered that the parent-child relationship between C.N. and G.N. be terminated. This
    appeal followed.
    SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
    In his first, second, and third issues, C.N. argues that the evidence is legally insufficient
    to support the jury’s finding that his parental rights to G.N. should be terminated under
    subsections (D), (E), and (O) of Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1). A no evidence
    complaint is preserved through one of the following: (1) a motion for instructed verdict; (2) a
    motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (3) an objection to the submission of the issue
    to the jury; (4) a motion to disregard the jury’s answer to a vital fact issue; or (5) a motion for
    new trial. T.O. Stanley Boot Co., Inc. v. Bank of El Paso, 
    847 S.W.2d 218
    , 220 (Tex. 1992);
    see also In re D.J.J., 
    178 S.W.3d 424
    , 426-27 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). C.N. did
    not make an objection to the submission of the issue to the jury, file a postverdict motion to
    preserve his legal sufficiency complaint, or file a motion for new trial. Therefore, C.N. has
    waived his complaint regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s
    findings. See In re 
    D.J.J., 178 S.W.3d at 426-27
    . Accordingly, we overrule C.N.’s first, second,
    and third issues.2
    DISPOSITION
    Having overruled all of C.N.’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    JAMES T. WORTHEN
    Chief Justice
    Opinion delivered December 13, 2017.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
    (PUBLISH)
    2
    C.N. makes no claim that failure to preserve error was unjustifiable or the result of ineffective assistance
    of counsel. See In re J.P.B., 
    180 S.W.3d 570
    , 575 (Tex. 2005). Moreover, he does not challenge the factual
    sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s findings under subsections (D), (E), and (O) of Texas Family Code
    section 161.001(b)(1). Nor, on appeal, does C.N. challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to
    support the jury’s finding that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of the child.
    2
    COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    JUDGMENT
    DECEMBER 13, 2017
    NO. 12-17-00262-CV
    IN THE INTEREST OF G.N., A CHILD
    Appeal from the County Court at Law
    of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2016-08-0539)
    THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
    herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
    judgment.
    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
    of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
    below for observance.
    James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-17-00262-CV

Filed Date: 12/13/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/16/2017