## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate Dist rict of Texas at Fo rt W orth

___ ________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00073

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 322

- 679090

- 20
Before Birdwell, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell



### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### Z.J., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mother and Father appeal from a n order naming the Texas Department of Family and Protective Ser vices a s per m anent managing conservator of their child and
d enying the parents even possessory conser vatorship. The parents contend that the
evidence is insuffic ient to support such an order

. We hold that Father ’ s persistent drug use , Mother ’ s physi cal abuse, a nd other detriment s shared b etween them just if

y the order from a n eviden tiary s tandpoin t
. Mother raises other cha llenges , but they are either inadequately br iefed or unpreserved. Ergo , we affirm

. I. B ACKG ROUND
Father is the biol ogical parent of Mother ’ s youngest child , a baby whom we will
refer to as Zeke. 1 T he Department received a number of troubling reports concerning Mo ther , Fathe r, and the ir chi l dren

. Base d o n th o se repo rts, the Department removed the children and i nitiate d thes e proceedings to terminate
Mother ’ s and F a ther ’ s p arental rights to Zeke

. A t trial, it was established that some of the ch ildren were previously sexua lly assaulted by Mother ’ s former husba nd

. T he re was also evidence that Mother ’ s

curr ent paramour, Father , regularly used me thamphetamine and th warted drug test s by cutting his hair and nails short

. Mother also tes ted positive for trace le vels of

1 T o protect the mino r ’ s identity , we refer to the family members using ps eudonym s . See T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109. 002(d) ; In re J.P. , 598 S.W.3d 7 89, 791 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2020, pet s . denied)

.3 methamp heta mine on ce during the child welfare case

. D u ring a period when Father

was in carcerate d , Mother a llowed one of Father ’s acqua intances from jail , C edric , to stay in the house an d care for the children de spite his known anger iss ues . Witnesses
testifi ed that during Fathe r ’ s jail st in t, his daughter was taken to the hospital with a broken leg, and Cedric called the Department to rep ort that Z eke was injured as we ll

. The De partment’s in vestigato r testified that when she pre ssed Mother for an explanatio n at the ho spital , Mo ther confessed to injuring Zeke but claimed it was

un int entional , th ough Mother later denied making any such confession and shifted
blame for the injuries onto Ced ric

. A fter F ather ’s re l ease and the retur n of the other
children aside fr om Zek e , Mother often left Father to care for the child ren despite his persist ent methamphetamin e us e . After hearing this eviden ce, the tr ial court denied termination of Mother ’ s and
Father ’ s p arent al rights to Zeke

. How ever, the trial court f ound t hat appoint i ng Mother and Father as manag ing conservator s would not be in th e ch ild ’ s best interest
and would significantly impa ir th e c h i ld ’ s physical health or emotio nal deve lopment. So, t he trial court awarded s ole perm a n e nt man aging conser vatorship to the
De partm en t
. Addi tional ly , the trial court denied Mother and Father p ossessory conservatorship, though the court did grant supervised visitation three times a month
conditioned on successful drug testing

. Fin ally, t he court ordered Mother and Father
to pay child s upport and medic al support t o the Department

. Mot her and Fathe r appeale d.4 I I. S UFFICIENCY OF THE E VIDENCE
In her first two iss ues, Mo ther challenges th e sufficiency of the evidence to support the aw ard of sole managing con servator ship to the Departme n t r ather than to Mother , and Father b rin gs a simil ar challeng e . 2 I n her third issue, Mother contests the
denial of possessory conservators hip

. A. Appli cable Law
C onservat orship determ inati ons mad e af ter a bench trial ar e governed by a preponderance

- o f

- th e

- ev idence standard

. In re J.A.J. , 243 S.W. 3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007). The appointment of a conservator is subject to review for abuse of dis cretion
and m ay be reversed only where the de cision i s arbi tr ary and unreasonable

. Id. Under
the abus e

- of

- disc reti on s tandard, legal a nd factual insufficiency are no t independent grounds for asserting error ; they are merely relevant fa ctors in assessing whether a tri al
court abused its discretion

. In re S .T. , 508 S.W.3d 482, 489 (Te x. App.

— Fort Worth 2015, no pet .)

. A n abuse of discret ion does not occur for want of evidence when the

2 In F ather ’ s statement of issues , he also argues , “ There was not enough evidence to support the trial court’s decision to grant perm anent managing
co nservatorship to the Dep artment as Appella nt was incarcer ated when the child was injured. ” He co ntinues, “ The Department failed to provide drug treatment services to Appellant until one week before trial. ” However, if Father int ended for these
s entences to serve as issue s , he o ffer ed no a rgument o r a u thority to support them , and we deem them inadequately br iefed. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1( i ) (requiring a clear and concise argument with appropriate citations to legal authorities); In re T.T.F. , 33 1 S.W.3d 461, 477

– 78 (Tex. App.

— F ort Worth 2 010, no p et.)

. Father ’ s only adequately briefed argument concern s whether naming the Department as managing conservator
was in Zeke ’ s best interest.5 trial c ourt bases its decision on conflicting evidence and some evidenc e of substant ive and probati ve character supports its decisio n . Id

. at 490.
A child ’ s best interest is the prim a ry co ns ideration in det ermining conservatorship issues

. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.002; Danet v. Bhan , 436 S.W.3d 793, 796 (Tex. 2014) (per cur iam)

. A best

- interest determination is guided by the

non exclusive H olley fa ct ors : (1) the desires of the child ; (2 ) th e emotional and physical
needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the emoti onal and physical dan ger to the
child now and in the fut ure; (4) the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the pr ograms available to assist t hese i ndiv id ua l s to promote th e best interest of the child; ( 6) the plans for the child by the individuals or by th e agenc y seeking custody; (7) the s tability of t he home or proposed placement; (8) the acts or
omission s of the p arent which may indicate that the exis ti ng p arent

– child re lationship is not a proper one; and (9) any excuse for the acts o r omissions of the pa rent. In re
E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3d 79 6, 807 (Tex. 2012) (citing Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371

– 72 (T ex. 1976 ) )

. A court need not have evi dence on ev er y element listed to make a valid finding as to the child ’ s best interest. In re C.H. , 89 S.W.3d 17, 2 7 (Tex. 2002) ; In

re E.S. , No. 02

- 20

- 00407

- CV, 2021 WL 2149627, at *7 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 27, 202 1, no pe t. h.) (mem. op. ). While no o ne fa ctor i s co ntrolling, ana lysis of a single factor may be ade quate in a particular situatio n to support a finding that
termination is in the best interest of t he child. E.S. , 2021 WL 2149627, at *7 ; In re R.J. , 579 S.W.3d 97 , 114 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1s t Dis t.] 20 19 , pet. denied)

.6 T here is a presumption that app ointment of a parent as managing conservator
is in the child ’ s best interest

. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1 53.131 (a) ; S .T. , 508 S.W.3d at
491. A nonparent can rebu t the pre sumption b y showing that appointmen t of t he parent would si gnificantly impair the child ’ s physical healt h or emotional development

. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.131 (a) ; S .T. , 508 S.W.3d at 491

. To show significant impairment , the non parent must identify specific act s or o mission s b y the
pa rent w hi ch demonstrate th at an awar d of cus tody to the pare nt would result in physical or emotional harm to the child

. S .T. , 508 S.W.3d at 492 ; In re S.W.H. , 72 S.W.3d 772, 777 (Tex. App.

— For t Worth 2002, no pet.) (quoting Lewelling v. Lewelling , 796 S.W.2d 1 64 , 167 (Tex. 19 90) ). “ Ac ts or omissions th at cons t itute signif ican t impairment include, but are not limited to, physic al abuse, severe neglect, abandonment, drug or alcohol abuse, or imm oral behavior by the parent. ” S .T. , 508
S.W.3d at 492. If a managin g co nse rvator i s appointe d, the court may a ppoint o ne or mo re
po sse ssory conservators. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.006(a ); In re B.P., Jr. , No. 2

- 07

- 251

- CV, 2008 WL 2639264, at *6 (Tex. Ap p.

— Fort Worth July 3, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op .). W hen a parent is no t ap pointed as a managing conservator, the Family
C ode calls for the parent to be appointed as a possessory co nservator unless a court find s that the appointment is not in the best inter e st of the child and that parental possession or acc ess would endanger t he physical or emotional welfare of the child.7 T ex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.191 ; Brandon v. Rudisel , 586 S.W.3d 94, 106 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.)

. B
. Father
F ather ar gues that the e vidence wa s insufficient to show that appointing the
D e pa rt ment as Zeke ’ s sole managing conservator was in the child ’ s bes t interest

. To Father ’ s credit , t he re was some evidence of his ability to provide for Zeke.
F at h er was a successful mechanic , and he helped provide a three

- bedroom house
where he lived wi th Mother

. H e testified t ha t he kept his schedule flexible to make
sure tha t the children were cared for when Mother was at work, and he spoke
affectionat ely of Zeke at trial.
How ever, the re was no shortage of e viden ce concerning Father ’ s insobri ety , whi ch in clude d both meth amph etamine and cocai ne use , for which he spent time in jail

. On the rare occasion that he act u ally took a court

- ordered drug test, F ather appeared at the test i ng facility u nder the obvious i nfluence of drugs , as the te st

a dministrato r explained : A. [Father ’s] demeanor was completely 180 from the other previous four to fiv e times that we had met. He was very anxious. His thought process was

— was interrupt ed sev er al times. What

— you know, hi s inability t o mak e complete sent ences, body l anguage, just moving about very frequently and rapidly, hand gestures, moving from one to p ic to another, just not a lot of continuity. In addition to

—

. . . . Q. And did y ou not ic e any type of od or or aroma about him tha t caus e d you con cern ?8 A. Yes, m a ’ am. Q. And

— and what was that? A. I

— I could smell an odor of methamphetamine or the res i dual from it as if it were perfused through th e skin. The Depar tment case worker t estified that if F ather were using drugs in the home , it
woul d not be a safe o r appr o p riate environ ment for a child

. E ven Mother ’ s t herapist,
who s u pported the p arents ’ b id to retain conservator ship , agreed that i f someone were usin g drug s in the hom e, it would not be wise for chi ldren t o remain ther e . Father ’ s drug use plays into sever al o f the Holl ey factors. See In re D.D.M. , No. 01

- 1 8

- 010 33

- CV, 2019 WL 2939259, at * 9 (Tex. App.

— Hou ston [1st Dist.] July 9, 201 9, no pet.) (m em. o p. on reh ’g ) (co ncluding that heavy methamphe tamine us age , on its own, justif ied naming the Department as m an ag ing co nservator due to its harmful effe ct on a fa t her ’ s life an d ability to parent )

. A litan y of other pr oblems also reflect ed poorl y on Fat her ’s pa rental abilities , the danger to the child, the stabilit y of the ho me, and the propriety of Fat her ’ s

cust od y as show n by his acts or omissions

. F ath er refe rred Cedric, a recently released

con v

ict , to live with the children de spite Father ’ s knowledg e that C edric had anger
issues. In deed, Mother blamed Zeke ’ s injuries on Cedric ; to the extent that the trial

c ou rt gave any crede nce to this te stimony, the court could have faulted F a ther for9 b ringing this danger int o Zeke ’ s life

. 3 Father reporte dly admitted beati ng a previous
g

irlfriend and was referred to a batterer ’ s intervention program. 4 M o ther als o testifi ed
that Father had been diagnosed with se veral mental diso rders. 5 D epartment witn es ses testifie d that Father ref used to provide finan cial stat emen ts and did not successfully complete his se rvice plan. And Father denied responsibility for his actions

. 6 H e maintained tha t he cut his hair and nails short ( in defiance of a court order ) not for
the purpose of evading drug t esting, bu t t o suit the needs of his job as a mechanic

. Father and Mother jointly cont e nded that their p ositive drug tests were attributa b l e to th eir innocent use of various medica tion s , though the Depa rtment’s w it nesses testif ied
that Father ’ s medications could not cause a false positive result

. Finally, Fath e r

assert ed that th e De pa rtment ’ s records concerning his vari ous peri ods of incar ce ration

were in c orrect.

3 See E.S. , 202 1 WL 2149627, at * 8 (w eighing whether t h ere is domestic violence

“ by the child ’ s fa mily or ot her s w ho have acc ess to the child ’ s home ” in the conservatorship calculus)

.
4 See id. a t * 9 (con cluding that domes tic violence, even w hen the child is not the tar get, ten ded to support d en ying a parent m anaging conserv atorship ).

5 See In re R.R

. , No. 02

- 13

- 00 464

- C V, 2014 WL 395393 0, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Aug. 14, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (relying in part on a mother ’ s “ mental dis orders ” in upholding a d enia l of managing conservators hip )

.
6 See In re B.O. , No. 02

- 16

- 00485

- CV, 2017 WL 2590 571, at * 2 5 ( Te x. App.

— F ort Worth Jun e 15, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that considerations fo r conservatorship “ include parental irrespons ibility ” )

.10 Ta king t his evidence toge ther and surveying it under our d eferential standard of
review , we co nclude that t he trial court did not abuse its discretion by det ermining that naming Fat her as Zeke ’ s managi ng cons ervator was not in the ch ild ’ s best interest

. See
M. D. v. Tex. Dep ’ t of Famil y & Protectiv e Serv s

. , No. 03

- 20

- 00531

- CV, 2021 WL 1704258,
at * 9 , * 12

– 13 (Tex. App.

— Austin Apr. 30, 2021, no p et. ) (mem. op .) (concluding that
evidence of a mot her ’ s me thamphetamine use and child mist re a t ment was insufficient

to su pport termi nation but that it was s ufficient , along with other evidence, to support naming the Department as s ole managing con se rva t or )

. We overrule Father ’s issue s . C
. Mothe r 7
In Mother ’ s first , second, and third issues , sh e a ssert s the evidence is
insuffic ient to just ify nam ing the D e p ar tm en t as sole managing conservator and t o deny Mother poss essory conservatorship.
In Mother ’ s favor, there was evidence of her commitment and ability to provide for Zeke emotionally a nd fina nc i ally

. Mother testified that at the time of trial,

7 In what M o ther d ubs issue 3a, she challenges the admission of her drug test results into evidence

. How ever, M other does so with only one sentence of argument , which reads, “Courts of Appeal have recognized the ne ed to show that drug te sts results have bee n properly preserved or gene rated an [sic] al s o that they were produced by the use of pr oper pro ce dures and me thods. ” W e h old th is argument inad equately briefed ; w here, as here, an appellant provides a one

- sentence proposi tion of law without any legal ana lysis, discussion, or argume nt ex plaining why the complained

- of evidence was ina d mi ss ible, nothi n g is p rese nted for our r ev iew

. S ee Tex . R. App . P. 3 8.1(i); Lozada v. Farrall & Blackwell A gency, Inc. , 323 S.W.3d 27 8, 287 ( Tex. App.

— El Paso 2010, no pet.)

.11 she had a st ead y job at a wa rehouse , a house with a sepa rate bed room for Zeke, and a family s upport system that she could rely on as a resource for childcare and for her own therap eutic needs

. Mother s ai d that she pre viously q uit a dema nding job at a law
firm to b e able to comply with her ser vice pla n. Aside from one p osit i ve drug test, Mother otherwise tested negative for drugs, and her counsel or s believed that Mothe r

was no t a regular drug user

. The r e was also e vidence that Mother had made significant ch anges to better
herself and her relationshi p wit h the ch ildren. She explained that before the children were removed, she was overwhe lmed b y the b urd e n of rais ing five chil dren on her

own . M o ther be li ev ed that her circumstances had cha ng ed for the better , though,
because she ha d gaine d a coparent in Father , support ive friends, and new te chniques

t hat she learned in therapy for deali ng wi t h stress ors. Mother ’s therapist tes tified that
M other made impro ve ment ove r the cours e of the ir counsel i ng sess i ons , especially in
tha t she took more responsibility for the children ’s p robl ems . Finally, Mother had
cared fo r Zeke ’ s siblings without incident since the Department h ad agreed to their
monitored return
. But t he Depar tment ’ s casewo rker t estifie d that Zeke was differen t from the
other children because , as a b aby, he was incapable of protecting himself from a b u se . And there was evi dence that Mothe r did in fact se verely abuse Zeke

. 8 A Department
investi gator t es tified she rec ei ved a c all fr om Ced ric reporting that Zeke w as injured.

8 See S .T. , 508 S.W.3d at 49 2.12 The investig ato r met Cedric in a parking lot an d to ok Z eke to th e hospital , w h ere Father ’ s daughter was b eing treated for a broken leg , the source of which was never explained a t tr ia l

. 9 Photo s taken at the hospital dep icted a baby w ith heavy bruisin g

across both sides of his head , includ ing the e ntire left side of his face, as we ll as welts
and scratches on his chest and neck

. The investi gator te st ified that wh en she
confronted Mo th er w ith the p hotos at the hospital, Mother confes sed to injuring the
child : [Mo ther] de nie d th e injuries at first. And after I showed her the pi ctures of the extensive bruising to his entire face, she admitted to, lik e, pushing him down in a bathtub bec au se she was upset that he was try ing to crawl out of the bathtub. So she admitt ed to, l ike , pu s hing him kind of down into the bathtub. At trial, M other denied making any such confession and instead bla med t he in juries
on Cedric

. 10
This abuse ( and denial o f responsibilit y for the abuse ) stood along side several

ot he r failings that further supported findings against Mother on end angerm ent , significant impa irment , and best interest

. While F ather was incarcerated, Mother
allowed a recently released convict wit h anger issues to stay i n the home and care for

9 When the Depa rtment filed its petition to rem ov e th e children, i t submi tte d an affidavit th at relayed one of the children ’ s account of how the broken leg had occurred: during a babysitti ng se ssi on , mother ’ s e ldest son had j umped on the child ’ s leg and int entionally bro ke n it out of frustration with Mot her ’ s constant ab sence f r om the squalid fa mi ly home , but Mothe r did not immediately seek med ical care for th e child because M o ther viewed her as a “ lying [,] thieving bit ch ” and th ou ght that the chi ld was mali ngering

.
10 See B.O. , 2017 WL 2590 571, at * 25

.13 the chi ldren on hi s o wn . 11 After Father ’s relea se , Mother of ten left Fathe r

— a regular methamphetamine user

— in char ge of th e children

. 12 Mother also test ed positi ve fo r meth amphet ami ne . M other ’ s own ther apist a greed it would not b e wise for the
children to remain in an envir onmen t of drug use

. Moreove r, Mo ther re fused to
allow the D e p ar t m e n t acc ess to the home to ver ify its condition , refu sed to provide

account state ments to verify her fina nc ial situation , an d refused to provide a list of her
medica t ions even th ough she professed th at her and Father ’ s positive d rug test s were caused by use of medications. An d as to the Holley fa cto r concerning programs available to assist the parents , Mother testified that sh e would n ot seek any furt her
counsel in g unle ss it was requi red for Zeke ’ s return.
V

iewed toget her, these acts and omissions justified the t rial court ’ s finding tha t awarding managing conservators hip to Mother would s ignificantly impair Zeke ’ s healt h and de ve lopment and would no t be in his best interest , and that the child ’ s interest s wou ld be bes t served by appointing the Department as sole managing

conservator
. See S .T. , 508 S.W.3d at 491

– 9 2

. Furthermo r e , the trial court could have fairly fou nd that th e ap pointm ent of Mo ther as possessory conservator would not be
in Zeke ’ s bes t interest and would endange r his we lfare

. 13 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

11 See E. S. , 2021 WL 2149627, at * 8

.

12 See M. D. , 2021 WL 1704258, at * 9 , * 12

– 13 ; D.D.M. , 2019 WL 2939259, at * 9

.

13 W hile t he trial court decline d to appoint Mother as poss esso ry cons ervator and made find ings concernin g other issues in the case , the trial court did not make th e14 § 153.191 ; Brandon , 586 S.W.3d at 106 . The trial court ther e fore d id not abuse its
discretio n in nam ing the D e pa rt ment a s Z eke ’ s sole managing conservator and
d enying Mother even pos sess ory conservatorshi p.
We ove rrule Mo ther ’ s first three issues.
III. C ONDITIONS OF C ONSERVATORSHIP In her fourth, fifth , and sixt h issues, Mother contests the term s of t he trial

cou rt ’ s conse rva torship order. Specifically, Mother protests the order ’ s r equi rement that she pay $113 pe r month to the Department in order to defray the cost of supporting Zeke. Mother also obje c t s to the t rial court ’ s failure t o set specific gui delines fo r h e r possession of and access to Zeke , as well as a prov isio n that , find ing s that are required for d enial of possessory conservatorship: that the appointment was not in the best interest of the child and that parental possession or access would endanger t he physi cal or emotional we lfare of the child. See Tex. Fa m. Code Ann. § 153 .191

. “ The judgme nt may not be supported upon appeal by a presume d finding upon any ground of recovery or defense, no element of which has b een included in th e findings of fact

. . . . ” Luna v. Pickel , No. 02

- 19

- 00371

- CV, 2 020 WL 594992 7, at *5 (Tex. App

. — Fort Worth Oct. 8, 202 0, no pet. ) (mem. op. ) (quoting Te x. R. Ci v. P. 2 99 )

. However, on appeal , Mother does not assign error or brief any c hallenge concerning th e abse nce of the se f indi ngs . See Pike v. Tex. EMC Mgmt., LLC , 610 S.W.3d 7 63, 782 (Tex. 2020 )

. “ A court of ap peals may not reverse a trial cour t judgment o n a ground not raised. ” Id. “ Our adversary system of justice generally depe nds ‘ on the parties to frame the issue s for de cision and assign s to courts the role of neutral ar biter of matters t he parties present

. ’ ” I d. (cleaned up) ( quoting Gre enl aw v. Uni ted States , 554 U.S. 237, 243, 128 S. Ct. 2559 , 2564 (2008) )

. “The rule that point s not argued will not be considered is m ore than just a prudential rule of con venience; its observance, at le ast in the vast ma jority of cases, distinguishe s our adver sary system of justice from the inquisitorial one.” Id. (quoting United States v. Burke , 504 U.S. 229, 246, 11 2 S. Ct. 1867 , 187 7 (1 992) (Scalia, J., concurring) ). T he absence of these findings th erefore may not se rve as a basis for reversal.15 according to Mother , empowe r s the Depar t ment to set ambiguous conditions on her possession and access.
The Departme n t responds tha t becaus e Mo ther never rais ed t hese ar guments in
the trial c ourt, they are not pr eserved. We agre e wi th the Depart ment
.

“ T o preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objectio n , or motion that sta tes the specif ic grounds
for the desired ruling, if th ey are not apparent from the context of the request, objectio n, or motion. ” In re C.H. , 412 S.W.3d 67, 78 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2013, pet. denied)

. “ If a part y fails to do this, e r ror is not p reserved

. ” In re J.C. , 594 S.W.3d
4 66, 473 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wo rth 2019, no pet.)

. T his rule conse rves judicial

res ources b y giving trial courts an opportunity to correct an error before an appeal proceeds, promotes fa irness among litigants by prohibiting them fro m su rprising t heir
opponents on appeal, a nd furthers t he goal of accuracy in judicial deci sion

- making by
al lowing t he parties to develop and refine their arguments and allowing the trial court

to analyze the questions at issue. USAA T e x. Lloyds Co . v. Men chac a , 545 S.W .3d 479, 510 ( Tex. 2018) (op. on reh ’ g )

. An appellate court generally cannot reve rse based on a complaint n ot raise d in the trial court. C.H. , 412 S.W.3d at 78

– 79

.

“ An exception to the preservation

- of

- error requirement applies when the alleg ed er ror is ‘ fund amental. ’ ” M enchaca , 5 45 S.W.3d a t 510

. But M o ther has not argued that any of th e complai ned

- of pro vision s constit ute fundamental error, and we find no authority suggesting that they are. See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. T amez , 206 S.W.3d16 572, 577 ( Tex. 2006) (colle cting case s where the fundame nt al

- error doctrine applies , but not includ ing t he compla ints at issue here ) ; In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340, 350 (Tex. 2003) (s ame). Ergo , b ecause Mother never r a ised these co mplaints in the tria l cou rt, we overrule h er remaini ng issues. S e e T ex . R. App. P

. 33.1 (a) ; see, e.g. , In re H.E.W.M. , No.
04

- 19

- 00202

- CV, 2020 WL 1866466, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Apr. 15, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op. ) ( rejecting an argument against medical s upport obligatio ns because the fat her “ did not specifically request a mod if ication of the medical support obligation in hi s counter

- petit ion, at the hearing, or in his post

- hearing mot ions, and he did not present an objection to the trial court that the cu mulative amount of his medical sup port obligations exceeds n ine percent o f his resources ” ).
IV. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial cour t ’ s j udg ment. /s/ Wade Birdwell
W ade Birdwell Justice
D elivered: August 5, 2021