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 Case 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 voluntarily 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 could 
2

have reconsidered the admission of the waiver and proceeded to trial on the merits 

but chose not to thereby abusing his discretion.”

As support for her argument, Mother cites to a statute that limits the grounds 

on which a parent can challenge the termination of parental rights if the parent 

signs an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.211(c) 

(providing that, when termination order is based on unrevoked affidavit 

relinquishing parental rights, appeal is limited to issues related to fraud, duress, or 

coercion in execution of parent’s affidavit). 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 ruling to admit evidence only if, among other 

things, the complaining party “on the record . . . timely objects or moves to strike” 

the evidence and “states the specific ground” for objection “unless it was apparent 

from the context.” TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(1). To preserve error for appellate review,

the complaining party must timely and specifically object to the evidence and 

obtain a ruling. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). “Error is waived if the complaining party 
3

allows the evidence to be introduced without objection.” 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. Lloyds 

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 included all statutorily required

recitations, including a list of rights she relinquished and a statement concerning 

the finality of her decision to relinquish those rights.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE 

§ 161.001(b)(1)(k) (providing for termination of parent-child relationship if court

finds by clear and convincing evidence that parent has executed unrevoked or 

irrevocable affidavit relinquishing parental rights). 

 

1 For example, immediately above Mother’s initials on the fourth page of the 

affidavit is the 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 notarized. 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 that any exception applies that 

would relieve her of her obligation 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 

Section 161.211(c) would permit it. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. We overrule Mother’s 

two issues.

Conclusion

We affirm.

Harvey Brown

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey.