### NUM BER 13-09- 0027 6-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
IN THE INTEREST OF A .M ., A M INO R CHILD
On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 5 of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Garza

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t A. T. cha ll eng es the t ri al cour t' s ter minat ion of he r parental r ig hts to A.M ., a mi nor ch il d. By

tw o i ss ues, A.T. compla in s th a t: (1) the ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly ins uff ic ien t to suppo rtthe tr ial co urt' s fin din g s j ust ify ing ter minat ion , see T EX
. F AM
. C O D E A NN
. § 161.001 (V er non Supp. 2009) ; and (2 ) the tr ial cour t er re d in adm it ti n g a doct or's report, over appe llant's hearsay obje ction, w hich w as used to suppo rt the court's fi nd i ng t ha t A. T. c au s ed A .M

. to b e bo r n ad di c te d to d r ug s . W e affi r m.T he f ol l owi ng a r e t he f i ndi ngs o n whi ch t he t r i al cour t base d t er m i nat i on o fA. T

. ' s par ent al r i ght s: 1 ( 1 ) te r m in a tio n o fth e p a r e n t- c h ild r e la tio n s h ip is in th e b e s t in te r e s t o fth e c h ild ; ( 2 ) th e m o th e r k n o w in g ly pl aced or al l owed t he chi l d t o r em ai n i n con di t i ons o r sur r oundi ngs t hat end anger ed t he p hy si cal orem ot i onal wel l
- bei ng o ft he ch i l d; ( 3) t he m ot he r h as b ee n con v i ct ed o r pl aced on co m m uni t y supe r v i si on f or bei ng cr i m i nal l y r esponsi bl e f or t he d eat h or ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y of a chi l d; ( 4) t he m ot her const r uct i v el y aba ndone d th e c h i l d ; (5 ) th e m o th e r fa i l e d to c o m p l y w i th a c o u rt o rd e r e s ta b l i s h i n g a c ti o n s n e c e s s a ry fo r th e p a re n t t o o b ta i n re tu rn o f th e c h i l d ; (6 ) th e m o th e r u s e d a c o n tro l l e d s u b s ta n c e i n a m a n n e r th a t e n d a n g e re d th e h e a l th or s afe t y of t he ch i l d a nd fai l ed t o c om pl ete a c ou rt orde red t rea t m en t prog ram or, aft er c om pl etio n o f a pr ogr am , cont i nued t o abuse a cont r ol l ed subst ance; and ( 7) t he m ot her has been t he cause ofa chi l d be i ng b o rn a d d i c te d to a c o n tro l l e d s u b s ta n c e . See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 61

. 00 1(1 )( D ), (1 )( L), (1 )( N )- (P ), (1)( R ), (2 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ). 2 I. BACKGROUND App ellee T exas Departm entof Family and Protect iv e Services ( T DFPS) f ir st became inv olv ed w it h A. M. i n J anuar y 2007, w hen A. M. tes ted posi ti v e for c ocai ne atbi rt h. After further

i nv est ig ati on, TD FPS remov ed A. M. from A. T.'s cu sto dy i n Ma rc h 2007, and pla ced the c hil d i n f o st e r ca re . Al thoug h A. M. w as temporar il y retur ned t o A. T. i n J une 2008, cus tody

r e m ain ed w it h TDF PS. In September 2008, A.T. w as ar re ste d for dr iv ing
w hil e int ox ic ated and c hil d endan g er ment. As a resul t, A.M . w as ag ain remov ed by TDF PS. A.M. w as plac ed w it h the same foster famil y w ho cared for

her foll ow ing her

bi rt h, after a TDF PS i nv est ig ator dete rm in e d tha t i t w oul d be unsafe to pl ace A.M . w it h any member of A. T .' s f a mil y . The foster famil y i nter v ened i n the ter minat ion ac ti on and expressed a desire to ado pt A.M. I n Februa ry 2 009 , followi ng a b ench t rial, th e trial court signed an order term inatin g A.T .'s paren tal rig hts w ith respe ct to A.M. II. D ISC US SION A

. Leg al an d Fact ual Su ff icien cy By her f irst issue, A.T . challen ges th e legal and factu al suf f iciency of

the evidence suppo rt ing the tr ial co urt' s find in gs that w ere us ed to j ust ify parental ter minat ion

. 1 Spe cif ica ll y, A.T . alleges thatthe evidence w as insuf f icient to prove that A.M. w as bo rn3

addi cte d to coc ain e and that ter minat ion of he r parental ri g hts w as in A.M .' s b esti nterest

. See i d. § 161 .00 1(1)(R), ( 2). 1. St and ard o f Rev iew Before ter minat ing parental ri g hts , the tr ial cour t must make a findi ng thatthe parent commi tted an ac t prohi bit ed by se cti on 161. 001( 1) of the famil y code and that ter minat ion is i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d. Id. § 161. 001; In r e J.L. , 163 S.W .3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005 );
s e e a l s oIn r e C

. W. , N o. 13 -0 8- 00112- CV , 2009 W L 1 4 0 5 2 4 , at*2 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ja n. 22 , 200 9, no pet. ) (mem. op.) . In volu n ta ry t er minat ion of parental r ig hts inv olv es fundamental cons ti tuti onal r ig hts and div est s t he parent and c hil d of al l leg al rig hts, p riv ileges, d uties, a nd p owers norm ally ex isting betw een them , except for the ch ild's ri g ht t o i nher itfrom t he parent. Holi ck v. Sm it h , 685 S.W .2d 18, 20 (Tex . 198 5) ; see In re D. S.P. , 210 S.W .3d 776, 778 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no pet .)

. For thi s reason , ter minat ion mustbe s uppor ted b y cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 161. 001; In r

e J.L. , 1 6 3 S

. W

. 3 d at 84; In re D. S.P. , 210 S.W .3d at 778 . Th is interm edia te sta nda rd falls between th e prep ond eran ce of the evidence stand ard of civi l proceed ing s and the reason abl e doubtst andard of cr imi nal proceed ing s. In re G.M. , 596 S.W .2d 8 46, 8 47 ( Tex . 198 0) ; In r e C .S. , 208 S.W .3d 7 7, 83 ( Tex . App.–F ort W orth 20 06, pet. deni ed)

. It is defined as the “meas ure or deg re e of proof t hat w il l produce in the mi nd of the tr ier of fact a firm bel ief or conv icti on as to t he tr uth o f the al leg ati ons soug ht t o be esta blished .” T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 101 .00 7 (Verno n 20 08). In rev iew ing the leg al su f fici ency of the e v ide nce suppo rt ing parental ter minat ion , w e mus t “ loo k a t al l the e v ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the fin din g to deter mine4

w hether a reason abl e tr ier

of fact c oul d hav e fo rm e d a f ir m bel ief or co nv icti on th at i ts f inding w as true. ” In r

e J.L. , 1 63 S. W .3d at 85. W e mu st assum e tha t the trier of fact
re sol v ed d isp uted facts in fav or of it s fin din g i f it w as re asona ble to do s o. Id. W e mu st als o c onsi der

undi sput ed ev ide nce, i f any , t hat d oes not s uppor t t he findi ng . Id. at 86. In rev iew ing the ev ide nce for factua l suffici ency , w e must gi v e due deferenc e to the fact f ind er 's findi ng s a nd notsu ppl ant i ts jud g ment w it h our ow n. In re H.R.M. , 209 S. W .3d 105 , 108 (Tex. 2006 ). W e rev iew t he ent ire reco rd to de term ine w het her a fact f inde r could
reaso nab ly

form a f irm conviction or belief thatthe pa rent viola t e d t he relevant co ndu ct provisi ons o f

section 161 .00 1(1) and thattermin ation of the pare nt-child relatio nship w ould be i n the bes t i nterestof the c hil d. In re C.H. , 89 S.W .3d 1 7, 28 ( Tex . 200 5)

. If, i n l ig ht of the enti re record, the disp uted ev ide nce unfav orabl e to the fin din g i s s o s ig nific ant t hat a
re asona ble f a ct f in d er co uld not hav e c re dit ed i t and thereby formed a fir m bel ief or
conv icti on i n the tr uth o f the findi ng , t hen t he ev ide nce is f act ual ly i nsuffici ent. In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W .3d a t 108

. 2. Drug-Positiv e Birth Sect ion 161. 001 of the family c o d e prov ide s t hat a co urt may bas e an order ter minat ing the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p on cl ear and conv inc ing ev ide nce that the p arent has "been t he c ause of the c hil d bei ng bor n addi cte d to alc ohol or a c ontroll ed s ubst ance, other than a cont ro ll ed subst ance le g all y obtained bypresc ri pti on . . . ." T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 161.001 (1 )( R)

. Here, t he tr ial co urt' s t er min a ti o n o rd er i ncl uded a findi ng that track ed th is l ang uag e, s tati ng that A.T. has "been t he c ause of [A.M .] bei ng bor n addi cte d5

to al cohol or

a c ontroll ed subst ance . . . as defined by§ 261.001 (8 ), Tex as Fami ly C ode." Sect ion 261. 001( 8) defines "born addicted to alco hol or controll ed subst ance" as a c hil d: (A ) w ho is bor n to a mother w ho dur ing the preg nancy used a c ontroll ed subs tanc e . . . and (B ) w ho, a fte r b irt h a s a r e sult of the mothe r' s u se of the cont ro ll ed subst ance or alcoho l: (i ) ex per ien ces obs er v abl e w it hdraw al from the alc ohol or cont ro ll ed s ubst ance; (i i) ex hib it s obser

v abl e or harm f u l e f

f e ct s in th e chil d's phy si cal appearance or

functi oni ng ; or (i ii ) ex hib it s the demonst ra ble presenc e of al cohol or a c ontroll ed subst ance in the child's bo dily f luids. Id. § 26 1.001( 8) ( Ver non 200 8)

. The undi sput ed ev ide nce at t ri al show ed th a t A. T. use d c ocai ne dur ing her preg nancy and t hat A .M . s uffered obs er v abl e w it hdraw al effect s. See i d. § 26 1.0 01(8 )(A), (B )( i) -( ii ). A. T. admi tted at t ri al that she had a his tor y of dr ug abus e, i ncl udi ng co cai ne, a nd tha t she used cocaine during at l east the f irst three -and -a-half mo nth s o f h e r p re gnancy
w ith A. M

. Th ere w as t es ti mo ny a t tr i al b y

b ot h A. T. a nd A .M .' s fos te r mo th er t ha t A.M.
ex hib it ed not ic eabl e w it hdraw al sy mptoms immedi atel y foll o wing her

bi rt h. W hen q uest ion ed by

TDF PS, A.T. g enerall y ac knowled ged that A. M. had suffered w it hdraw al sy mptoms. A. M. 's foster m other des cr ibe d the sy mptoms in detai l. Sh e s tated thatw hen A

. M. f ir s tca m e t o t h e ir h o m e , s h e wa s a p p ro xim a t e ly si x we e k s o ld , sh e wa s f ra il a n d t in y, and s he w as shak ing from w it hdraw al. The fost er mother st ated that she took

A.M . t o the doct or bec ause she w as conc er ned about the shaki ng . Based on t his tes ti mony and g iv ing due deference to t he tr ial co urt' s o bser v ati on of the w it ness es and w eig hin g of the
ev ide nce, w e det er mine that a reason abl e fact finder co uld hav e c oncl uded t hat t here w asBecause a t r i al cour t can i nv ol unt ar i l y t er m i nat e par ent al ri ght s based on anyone pr edi cat e gr ound 2 p l u s a fi n d i n g o f th e c h i l d 's b e s t i n te re s t, s e e I n re A. V. , 1 13 S. W

. 3d 3 55, 362 ( T ex. 200 3) , we ne ed n ot a d d re s s A .T .' s re m a i n i n g c o n te n ti o n s re g a rd i n g th e tri a l c o u rt's fi n d i n g s o n th e o th e r p re d i c a te g ro u n d s . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .1 ; s e e a ls o I n re J

. T. , N o. 13- 08- 00652
- C V, 200 9 W L 20 77184 , at * 12 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C h ris ti J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .). 6 cl ear and conv inci ng ev ide nce that A.T. c aused A.M . t o be bor n addi cte d to a c ontroll ed subs tanc e. See In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W .3d a t 108

. 2 3. Bes t In te resto f Ch ild A.T . also cha llenges the suf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort the t rial court's findi ng that ter minat ion of he r parental ri g hts is in A.M .' s besti nterest

. Al thoug h i t i s t ru e t h a tk e e p i n g a c h i l d w i t h a p a re n ti s o ft e n i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s ti n ter est , s e e In re R.R. , 209 S.W .3d 1 12, 1 16 ( Tex . 200 6) , i t i s als o pres umed that prompt and per manent p lac ement
o f t h e c h i l d i n a s a fe e n v i ro n me n ti s i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s ti n t e rest

. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 263 .30 7(a) (Vernon 200 8). W hen co nside ring w het her pare nta l te rmina tion is in the child's besti nterest , t he foll ow ing non- ex haust iv e l is t of factors s houl d be consid e red: (1 ) the desi re s o f the c hil d; ( 2) the emoti onal and phy si cal needs of t he chi ld now and in the future; (3 ) the emotio nal and phy si cal danger to the chi ld now

and in the future; ( 4) the parenti ng abi li ti es of the par

ti es seek ing cu sto dy ; ( 5 ) th e prog ra ms av ail abl e to ass is t t he par ti es seek ing cu sto dy ; ( 6) the pla ns for the c hil d by the par ti es seek ing cu sto dy ; ( 7) the sta bil ity of the home or

propose d pl acement ; ( 8) the act s o r omis si ons commi tted by the parent
w hic h may

i ndi cat e tha t t he ex is ti ng parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p i s n o t proper ; and ( 9) any ex cus e for the a cts or omis si ons commi tted by the parent. Ho lle y

v. A da ms , 544 S.W .2d 367 , 372 (Tex. 1976 ). The party see king pa renta l te rmina tion is not required to pro v e all nin e factors. See In re C.H. , 89 S.W .3d at 27 (p ro v idi ng thatthes e c onsi derati ons are not
ex haust iv e nor

must“ all suc h c onsi derati ons . . . be prov ed as a c ondi ti o n p recedentto7

parental ter minat ion ”)

. Mo re ov er , i n s ome cases , undis puted ev ide nce of jus t one factor maybe s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t a findi ng thatter minat ion i s i n the best i nterestof the c hil d. I d

. Accordin gly , w e w ill now ex am ine th e evidence in lig ht of these facto rs, as they are
re lev ant t o thi s c ase.

a. The desir es of the child. Ev en th oug h A. M. i s a v er y y oung ch il d, t here i s e v id e n ce that she has show n a preferen ce for being w ith he r fo ster pare n ts rathe r than A. T . Both TDFPS case w orkers and t he foster

mother tes ti fied th at A .M . c lun g to her foster mother w hen A. T. pi ck ed th e chi ld up for v is it s a nd appe ared unc omfortabl e w it h A. T. There w as tes ti m o n y t h a t the chi ld cr ied for e xtended per iod s o f time d ur ing the v is it s. T he ev ide nce als o i ndi cat ed th at A.M . w as v er

y hap p y ev er

y ti me she w as re tur ned t o the ca re of her foster parents , s he cal ls her foster parents "mommy " and "daddy ," and she has cl ose re lat ion ship s with her foster parents ' extended family

. b. T he emo ti on al an d ph ysical n eeds of t he chi ld n owan d in t he fu tu re; th e em ot io nal an d ph ysical d ang er t o th e ch ild n owan d in t he fu tu re; the parental abi lities of the indiv iduals see king custody ; the ac ts or omiss ions of t he parent w hich may indicate that the exis ting parentchi ld rel at io nsh ip is no t a p ro per o ne. Ev i de nc e of t he abo v e fac to rs is su bs ta nt i al . Tes ti mo ny at tr i al i nd i c at ed t ha t A. T. ha d di ffic ul ty

c on ne c ti ng w i th A .M .; the fos te r mo th er t es ti fi ed t ha t s he h ad t o s ho w A .T

. how to hold A.M. an d ho w to com fort the child. Our rev iew of the reco rd rev eals evidence th atA.T

. on l y

s po rad i c al l y

v i s i te d A. M

. an d c ou l d no t be rel i ab l y rea c he d by

TD F PS

. A .T

. w as jailed twice i n the y ear an d a ha lf af ter A.M

. wa s b orn—o nce for assau lting a police off ic er and once for dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated and c hil d endan g er ment. A.T. ple aded no cont estto ass aul ti ng the pol ic e off ic er and w as conv ict e d for c hil d endan g er ment. The8

c h i l d
- e n d a n g e r me n tc o n v i c t i o n a ro s e fro m a Sept e mb e r 2 0 0 8 i n c i d e n ti n w h i c h A

. T. l e ft A.M . i n her

ca r at 2: 00 a.m. w hil e she w ent int o the b aby si tter ’s hous e to pic k u p her othe r c hi l d aft er

a tt en di ng a par

ty . W he n s he re tu r ne d to the c ar , th e po l i c e w ere w ai ti ng for A .T

. and ar re ste d her

for dr iv ing w hil e int ox ic ated. As a re sul t, A.M

. w as re tur ned t o her foster pare nts. Upon the child's retu rn, her fo s t e r p a re n t s discovered tha t A.M. had a severe diap er rash and an ea r infe ction

. T h e e vid ence showed thatthe ea r infe ction was so
sev ere and untreated that A.M .' s e ars w ere fil led to the br im w it h y ell ow , foul- smel li ng pus tha t cont aine d gnats. In sho rt, there is cl ear an d con v inci n g evidence th at A.T . lacks appropr iat e parent ing sk il ls , pl aces A.M . i n phy si cal and emoti onal dang er , and does not make respon si ble , or ev en law ful, deci si ons that w oul d ind ic ate she coul d s ust ain a proper parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p.

c. The programs available to ass ist thes e i n div iduals to promote the best interes t of

the child. In M ay 2007, w hil e A. M. w as in the c ust ody of her foster parents for t he first ti me, the t ri al cour

t ordered A.T. to compl ete a serv ic e plan t o faci li tate the retur n of A.M . t o her
cus tody . A .T . comple ted a v ide o parenti ng co urse and dr ug as ses sment; how ev er , s he faile d to compl y

w it h the remaind er

of her pl an, w hic h i ncl uded reg ula r random dr ug sc re eni ng s, pay ing ch il d suppor t, and at tendi ng ang er

manag ement c las ses and ind iv idu al
coun seling. The re w as test imo ny tha t A.T . generally procrastin ate d in performin g the g oals of her plan and seem ed to prioritiz e he r ow n social lif e o v er accom plishing the ta sks
neces sar

y to re g ain cu sto dy

of A.M

. And al thoug h A .T . i nsi ste d at tr ial thatsh e made
ev er y effort t o att end her

sc hedul ed v is it s w it h A. M. , t he ev ide nce nonethe les s i ndi cat es that her v is it s w it h A. M. w ere s poradi c a nd th at A .T. w as unreli abl e i n c ontac ti ng TDF PS to i nform the ca sew or ker of her w hereabouts

.9 d. The plans for the child by these indiv iduals or by the agency

see king custody and the stability

of the home or propo sed pla cem ent. Our rev iew of the re cord ind ic ates that A.M .' s foster parents pl an to adopther and that TDF PS ha s a lready i nit iat ed th e procedu re s t o make thathappen

. A.T. t est ified at tr ial th ats he i s n ow

l i v i ng w i th h er

fat he r a nd i s i n th e proc es s o f ob ta i ni ng h er G ED

. A .T

. insists tha t she can provide a stab le environme nt for A.M. Th e trial court disagreed . First and fore most, i t i s u ndi sput ed th at A .T.'s abi li ty to care for A.M

. is direct ly i nhi bit ed by

the cond itions of

her proba tion for her child en dan germen t conviction, con dition s wh ich express ly fo rb id her to ha v e con tact wi th A.M. Moreover, there is evidence th at A.T .'s fath er has a crimina l record and t hatA .T ., herse lf , w as in and out of foste r care as a child becau se of poss ibl e abus e by her parents

. In t h e ev ent t hat t he tr ial co urt dec ide d to ter minat e or deny pl acementw it h A. T., she als o urg ed the courtto pla ce A.M . w it h one of her famil y m embers. W e not e tha t t he family members A .T. had in mind, alt houg h sc hedul ed to t est ify at the b ench tr ial , fail ed to appear . F urther more, there i s e v ide nce that thes e famil y members h ad c ri minal records and t hat w hen TD FPS att empted t o pl ace A. M. wit h the m after her bi rt h, t hey

w ere not reach able and later informe d T DFPS tha t the y w ere unw illing to take the child. T hus, there
w as suffici ent e v ide nce for th e tr ial co urt t o c oncl ude that TDF PS' s pla n for A.M .' s a dopti on b y h e r fo s t e r p a re n t s is su p e ri o r t o p la c e m e n twit h A

. T

. o r h e r fa m il y.

e. A ny exc use for the acts or omissi ons of t he parent. Cou nsel for A .T. as ser

ted a t tr ial thatthe si tuati on has been blo w n outof propor ti on byT DF PS, w h i c h p l a n n e d fro m t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g fo r

A

. M

. t o b e a d o p t e d b y h e r fo ste r parents

. A.T. al so tes ti fied th at s he had made mistak es and assured the tri al cour t t hat s he
w as tr y ing to chang e. As prev iou sl y des cr ibe d, ho w ev er , t he ev ide nce ind ic ates othe rw is e.10

Mo re ov er , w e g iv e defere nce to t he tr ial cour t' s deter minat ion re g ardin g the credi bil ity of the w it ness es and w il l not s ubst it ute o ur ow n j udg ment. See In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W .3d a t 108

. T he ev iden ce is abu nda nt that terminat ion of A.T .'s paren tal rig hts is in A.M.'s best intere st, and w e w ill not secon d-guess the trial court's decision based on ourse cond ary re v iew of the record. 4. Conclusion Vi ew i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h tm o s tfa v o ra b l e t o t h e fi n d i n g s , w e c o n c l u d e t hat
a re a s o n a b le fa c tf in d e r c o u ld h a ve fo rm e d a f ir m b e li e f t h a tA

. T

. ca u s e d t h e d ru g- p o s it ive bir th of A. M. and that ter minat ion w as in the c hil d's bes t in te re st. See In r e J.L. , 163 S.W .3d at 85. M oreo v er, w e conclu de tha t the e v iden ce w as factu ally suf f icient be cause the disput ed e v iden ce con trary to t h e f in d in gs w as no t so significan t tha t the trial court coul d not hav e formed suc h a fir m conv icti on or bel ief. See In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W .3d a t 108. By our hol din g today , w e are mi ndful t hat "[w]hi le parental r ig hts are of cons ti tuti onal mag nit ude, they

are notabs olu te." In re C.H. , 8 9 S

. W

. 3 d a t2 6

. " J u s ta s itis im p e ra t ive for courts to recogniz e the constitu tiona l unde rpinnin gs of the pa rent-child relat ionsh ip, it is a lso essen tial tha t em otion al and p hysical inte rests of the child n ot be sacrifice d me rely to preser

v e tha t r ig ht." Id. As such, w e con clude that t h e t ri al court did not err in ter minat ing A.T.' s p arental r ig hts

. A.T.' s first is sue is ov er ru led

. B. Adm issio n of

Ev id ence By her seco nd issue, A.T

. com plains tha t the t rial cou rt e rred in adm itting the repo rt of Mi g uel D eLeon, M. D. ov er her obj ect ion that the repor t w as hearsay . A.T. c ontends that the a dmis si on of the re por t har med her

bec ause itw a s the onl y ev ide nce that A.M . w as born a ddicte d to cocain e. A ssum ing w ithou t decid ing th at the m edica l record did con tainAl t hough A. T

. st at es i n her br i ef t hat t he r epor t was i nadm i ssi bl e because i t co ntai ne d h ear say 3 st at em ent s, she al so ap pear s t o m ake a cur sor y at t ack on t he q ual i f i cat i ons o ft he d oct or and r el i abi l i t y of t he r epor t

. T o t he e xt ent A. T

. i s m aki ng an exper t chal l enge, howev er , she h as no t pr eser v ed t hi s i ssue f or our r ev i ew. Counsel f or A. T

. obj ect ed at t r i al t o t he cont ent oft he hospi t al re cor ds an d t he q ual i f i cat i ons o ft he re c o rd 's c u s to d i a n to te s ti fy a s to th e c o n te n ts o f th e re c o rd s b u t d i d n o t o b ta i n a ru l i n g fro m th e tri a l c o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33. 1( a)

. R at her , t he onl y t i m el y obj ect i ons r el at ed t o t he ch al l enged r epor t t hat wer e r ul ed u p o n b y th e tr ia l c o u r t w e r e b a s e d o n h e a r s a y a n d i m p r o p e r p r e d ic a te f o r a b u s in e s s r e c o r d . A c c o r d in g ly, A

. T

. ' s se c on d i s s ue i n s o fa r as i t c ha l l en ge s t he qu al i fi c ati on s of D r. D eL eo n a nd t he rel i ab i l i t y of t he repo rt i s wai v ed. 11 ina dmis si ble hearsay , w e nonet hel ess co ncl ude t hat a ny er ro neous a d m issi on w as h a rm le ss be ca u se , a s p re viou sly d isc u ss e d , t h e re w a s o t h e r e vid e n ce of

A. M. 's dru gpositive birth introdu ced to the trial court, w ithou t obje ction, af ter adm ission of

Dr. DeLe on's record—sp ecif ically , A.T .'s adm ission tha t she use d drugs during th e f irst th ree and a half
mo nth s of

her pregnan c y a n d t e s t imo ny by bot h A.T . and the foste r moth er thatA.M. suff e red obs er

v abl e w it hdraw al sy mptoms immedi atel y foll ow ing her

bi rt h. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4.1; Gee v. Libe rt y Mut. Fi reIns . C o. , 765 S. W .2d 3 94, 3 96 ( Tex . 198 9) ( hol din g that er ro r in admis si on of ev ide nce is not re v ersi ble unl ess it w as re asona bly

ca lc ula ted t o and prob ably did cau se rend ition of improp er judgme nt); se e also Vo lkswa gen of Am ., Inc. v. Ra m ir ez , 1 5 9 S

. W

. 3 d 8 9 7 , 9 0 7 ( Te x . 2 0 0 4 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t e r ro r i n t h e a dmis si on of tes ti mony

i s deemed harml ess and is w aiv ed if the objecti ng party su bseq uentl y

per mits the same or similar ev iden ce to be introdu ced wi tho ut objection ). A.T. 's second issue is
ov er ru led

. 3 III . CO NC LU SION The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 5 th da y

of Nov ember , 200 9.