NUMBER 13-08-00337-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

IN THE INTEREST OF L.N.B., A CHILD

 

On appeal from the 24th District Court 

of Victoria County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant, the biological father of L.N.B., has filed an appeal from the termination

of his parental rights with respect to his minor child, L.N.B. By one issue, appellant

contends that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating his parental rights without

first requiring appellee, the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

(TDPRS), to develop a parenting plan and without allowing him the opportunity to meet the

plan's requirements. We affirm.
 Appellant's statement of points on which he intends to appeal asserted that: (1) the evidence was 1

legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that termination was in the child's best

interest; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in determining that termination was in the child's best interest;

(3) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that he knowingly

engaged in criminal conduct that resulted in his conviction; (4) the evidence was legally and factually

insufficient to support the trial court's finding that he knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that resulted in

his conviction of an offense and confinement or imprisonment and inability to care for the child for not less

than two years from the date of the filing of the petition; (5) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient

to support the trial court's finding that the TDPRS has made reasonable efforts to return the child to him; (6)

the trial court abused his discretion in determining that the TDPRS has made reasonable efforts to return the

child to the father; (7) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that

the TDPRS should be appointed permanent managing conservator of the child; (8) the trial court abused its

discretion in determining that the TDPRS should be appointed permanent managing conservator of the child;

(9) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that the appointment

of the TDPRS as permanent managing conservator of the child is in the best interest of the child; (10) the trial

court abused its discretion in determining that the appointment of the TDPRS as the permanent managing

conservator of the child is in the child's best interest; and (11) the evidence was legally and factually

insufficient to support the trial court's finding that he is unable to care for the child for not less than two years

from the date of the filing of the petition. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(b) (Vernon Supp. 2008).

2

A party that intends to appeal a trial court's termination order is required to timely

file "a statement of the point or points on which the party intends to appeal." TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 263.405(b) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Furthermore, section 263.405 of the family

code dictates that an appellate court "may not consider any issue that was not specifically

presented to the trial court in a timely filed statement of the points on which the party

intends to appeal or in a statement combined with a motion for new trial." Id. § 263.405(i).

In determining whether appellant complied with section 263.405, we must first

determine whether the issue he raises on appeal was specifically presented to the trial

court in his motion for new trial and statement of points. See id. In his sole issue on a

appeal, appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion by not requiring the

TDPRS to develop a parenting plan and by not allowing him adequate time to comply with

the plan. However, in his motion for new trial and statement of points on appeal, this issue

was not "specifically presented" to the trial court. Therefore, because appellant's issue 1

on appeal does not appear in his motion for new trial and statement of points, we cannot
3

consider it. See id; In the Interest of D.A.R., 201 S.W.3d 229, 231 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth

2006, no pet.).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 28th day of August, 2008.