Opinion issued August 7 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00173
- CV

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF A . T. O. JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No . 2017
- 01254J

MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court terminated the parental rights of B.L.T. (Mother) to her child, A.T.O. Jr. ( referred to as “ Adam ” ). Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting her own affidavit in which she vo luntarily relinquished her parental rights. Mother herself offered the affidavit into evidence, and it was admitted without objection. She argues that the “district court judge properly could2

have reconsidered the admission of the waiver and proceeded to t rial on the merits but chose not to th ereby abusing his discretion.”
As support for her argument , Mother cites to a s tatute that limits the grounds on which a parent can challenge the termination of parental rights if the parent sign s an affidavit of volu ntary relinquishment. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE § 161.211(c) ( providing that, when termination order is based on unrevoked affidavit relinquish ing parental rights , appeal is limited to issues related to fraud, duress, or coercion in execution of parent’s affidavi t). She contends that the statute should
not limit her ability to argue that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting her affidavit and that, if the statute does preclude review of her evidentiary issue , it is unconstitutional. We need not decide whether Section 161.211(c) would foreclose review of Mother’s evidentiary challenge or whether such preclusion would be unconstitutional because there is no evidentiary ruling that has been preserved for review on appeal. A party may claim error in a rul ing to admit evidence only if, among other things, the complaining party “on the record . . . timely objects or move s to strike” the evidence and “states the specific ground ” for objection “ unless it was apparent from the context .” T EX
. R. E VID
. 103( a )(1). To preserve error for appellate review , the complaining party must timely and specifically object to the evidence and obtain a ruling. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1(a). “Error is waived if the complaining party3

allows the evidence to be introduced without objectio n.” Bay Area Healthcare Grp. Ltd. v. McShane , 239 S.W.3d 231, 235 (Tex. 2007). “ This rule ‘ conserves judicial resources by giving trial courts an opportunity to correct an error before an appeal proceeds, ’ promotes ‘ fairness among litigants ’ by prohibiting them from surprising their opponents on appeal, and furthers ‘ the goal of accuracy in judicial
decision

- making ’ by allowing the parties to ‘ develop and refine their arguments ’ and allowing the trial court to ‘ analyze the questions at issue. ’ ” USAA Tex. Ll oyds Co. v. Menchaca , 545 S.W.3d 479, 510 (Tex. 2018) (quoting In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340, 350 (Tex. 2003) )

. It is undisputed that Mother signed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights to Adam . The affidavit include d all statutori ly required recitations, including a list of rights she relinquish ed and a statement concerning the finality of her decision to relinquish those rights. 1 See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE § 161.001(b)(1)(k) (providing for terminat ion of parent

- child relationship if court finds by clear and convincing evidence that parent has executed unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit relinquish ing parental rights).

1 For example, i mmediately above Mother ’s initials on the fourth page of the affi davit is th e following paragraph , which, in its original form, has “all caps” formatting : I declare that this affidavit for voluntary relinquishment of parental rights is and shall be final, permanent, and irrevocable. I fully understand that, if I change my mind at any time, I can never force the agency to destroy, revoke, rescind, or return this affidavit and that I cannot take back or undo this affidavit in any way.4

Mother initialed every page of the affidavit, signed the last page, and had the document witnessed by two individuals and n otarized. At the proceeding to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Adam, Mother requested that the trial court admit her affidavit into evidence

. There were no objections, and the trial court admitted her affidavit into evidence.
At no time during trial, after trial but before entry of judgment, or after entry of judgment, did Mother object to this evidence , move the trial court to reconsider its ruling , or seek a new trial

. Nor has she argued th at any exception applies that would relieve her of her oblig ation to preserve error through a timely objection and ruling. Accordingly , Mother has not preserved for appeal an issue on which to challenge the trial court’s discretion in admitting her evidence , regardless if
S ection 161.211(c) would permit it

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1

. W e overrule Mother’s
two issues. Conclusion We affirm.

Harvey Brown Justice Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey.