## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

____________ _______________ No . 02

- 20

- 00151

- CR

___________________________
On Appeal from Criminal Di strict Court No. 3 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1630964D Before Kerr, Wom ack, an d Wall ach , JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### Ex parte Amy Jackson McCaig2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Amy Jackson McCaig ( Mo ther) appeals the tria l court ’ s denial of relief on her habeas application seeking supervis ed visitation with her infant daughter , Mary . 1 Because M other failed to preserve her argument by timely objecting to the no contact bond condition , we affirm the tri al court ’ s order. In February 2020, M ot her was charged with second

- degree

- felony attempted injury to a child with intent to cause s e rious bodily injury . 2 See T ex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 15.01(d), 22.04(a)(1). On February 4, her bail was set at $25,00 0 and with conditions including prohibi ting her from contacting Mary o r any ch il d under the age of 17. Mother filed a written objection to the bond con dition prohibiting her c ontact with a ny child under 17 on the basis th at it prevented her from earning income through her employment as a hos pital labor

- and

- deliver y nurse . N othing in the record show s th at she ever presented that objection to the trial court and obtai n ed a ruling. After Mother violated the bond conditions in February 2020, her bail was raised to $50,000 , wi th the same prohibitio ns on con tact with minors, including Mary . Mother posted the bond and was released from jail . Six months later, M other applied for habeas corpus rel ief , arguing for the first tim e that the prohibi tion of contact with

1 We use an ali as in an effort t o pro tect the child ’ s identity . See 2nd Tex. Ap p. (Fort Worth ) Loc . R. 7. 2 The charge ar ose from allegations she tried to smother M a ry with a pillow .3 her c hildren 3 was oppress ive . The trial court denied her request for visitation out of it s concern for Mary ’ s safety . Mother now a pp e als that deci sion , but she has faile d to preserve error because she did not object to the condition 4 at the t ime it was imposed . We , an d seve ral of our sister courts, have held that a part y who delays in objecting to a no - contact bond condition fails to p r eserve error . Ex parte Layne , No s. 1 2

- 20

- 00148

- CR , 12

- 20

- 00149

- CR, 12

- 20

- 00150

- CR, 12

- 20

- 00 151

- CR, 2020 WL 6788 141, at * 2

– 3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler N ov. 18, 2020, no pet. ) (mem. op., not designate d for publication) ( collecting cases and holding five

- month delay failed to pre serve objection to no

- c o ntact condition) ; Ex parte Martinez , No. 02

- 15

- 00353

- CR , 2015 WL 9598924 , at * 3

– 4 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 3 1, 2015, no pet.) ( mem. o p., not designated f or publication) ( collecting
cases and holding similarly for eight

- month delay ) ; Ex parte Thompson , N o . 14

- 04

- 00731

- CR, 2005 WL 3 63971, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 17, 20 05, no pet.) (not de signate d for pu blication ) ( holdi ng similarly ).

3 Mother a l s o h a s a t w e l v e - y e a r - o l d d a u g h t e r a n d re quested visitation wi th her in the habeas a pplication , but Mother ’ s appeal concerns only the denial of h er request for visitation with Mary . 4 Even if we were to consider h er initial objec t ion filed in F ebruary 2020

— whi ch pre sen ted diffe rent grounds from those in her habeas appli catio n — the objection failed to preserve error because she did not present it to the trial court and obtain a ruling . Se e Tex. R. App. P. 3 3 .1(a) (1), (2) ; Thomas v. S tate , 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 201 6 ); Everitt v. State , 407 S.W.3d 259, 262

– 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 201 3 ) .4 B ecause Mother has failed to preserve error, we affirm the trial court ’ s order d enying habeas relief. 5

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice Do Not Publish Tex. R. A pp. P. 47.2(b) Delive red : January 7, 2021

5 Nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as limit ing the tri al court ’ s abili ty to modify the bo nd conditions in the future , a possibili ty that it left open at the time of the heari ng.