in the Interest of C.P., a Child ( 2012 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00724-CV In the INTEREST OF C.P., a Child From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-PA-01439 Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 20, 2012 AFFIRMED B.G. appeals a final order in a suit affecting the parent child relationship filed by the Department of Family and Protective Services. We affirm the order. The Department originally sought to terminate B.G.’s parental rights as to the child C.P. After the parties announced ready for trial, they advised the court they had reached an agreement, which was dictated into the record. Pursuant to the agreement, the Department withdrew its request for termination of B.G.’s parental rights, C.P.’s maternal aunt and uncle would be named permanent managing conservators, and B.G. would be named a possessory conservator. The parties agreed B.G. would have supervised visitation twice a month for two hours or as otherwise agreed by the parties, B.G. would attend weekly speech therapy sessions 04-11-00724-CV with C.P, and B.G. would pay $200 a month in child support. The trial court approved the settlement and rendered a final order in accordance with its terms. B.G. timely filed a motion for new trial, asserting legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence and that B.G. made a mistake of fact or law regarding the frequency and duration of the visitation she would be allowed under the order. The trial court denied the motion for new trial. B.G. timely appealed. A reporter’s record of the hearing at which the agreement was announced was filed with this court; however no record of a hearing on a motion for new trial was filed. In her brief on the merits, appellant argued she was entitled to a hearing on her motion for new trial and to a record of the hearing in order to adequately brief the issues on appeal. No substantive points were briefed. We subsequently determined the trial court had conducted an oral hearing on B.G.’s motion for new trial, and a reporter’s record of the hearing was filed. That record reveals that B.G. did not attend the hearing, and although her attorney made arguments, he did not present any evidence. After the record was filed, we granted B.G. an opportunity to file a supplemental brief. She has not done so. The only issues presented for review concerned the lack of a record of the new trial hearing. The record has since been filed and appellant has not presented any further issues for review. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed. Steven C. Hilbig, Justice -2-