Court Opinion

ID: 9398800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 08:09:42.196027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.608212
License: Public Domain

In The
                                   Court of Appeals
                          Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                            No. 07-22-00360-CV

                      IN THE INTEREST OF J.W. AND T.W., CHILDREN

                              On Appeal from the 99th District Court
                                      Lubbock County, Texas
                 Trial Court No. 2021-542,797, Honorable J. Phillip Hays, Presiding

                                              May 25, 2023
                                                OPINION
                         Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

        Father, J.D.W., appeals from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights

to his children, J.W. and T.W.1 By issues one and two, he contends the evidence is legally

and factually insufficient to support (1) termination under section 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E),

and (O) of the Texas Family Code, and (2) the best interest finding. By his third issue, he

asserts the trial court abused its discretion in making a conservatorship finding based on

insufficient evidence. We affirm.

        1To protect the privacy of the parties involved, we refer to the parents and children by their initials.
See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
                                          ANALYSIS

ISSUES ONE AND TWO

       By issues one and two, father makes a legal and factual sufficiency challenge.

After a jury trial, a legal-sufficiency challenge may be preserved in the trial court in one of

the following ways: (1) a motion for instructed verdict, (2) a motion for judgment

notwithstanding the verdict, (3) an objection to the submission of the issue to the jury, (4)

a motion to disregard the jury's answer to a vital fact issue, or (5) a motion for new trial.

See In re D.T., 625 S.W.3d 62, 75 (Tex. 2021) (citing Aero Energy, Inc. v. Circle C Drilling

Co., 699 S.W.2d 821, 822 (Tex. 1985)). Preservation of a factual-sufficiency challenge

requires a motion for new trial. Id. (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 324(b)(2)).

       A review of the record reveals father neither filed a motion for new trial nor made

any of the above objections or motions. Thus, father has not preserved a legal or factual

sufficiency challenge. Accordingly, issues one and two are overruled.

ISSUE THREE—CONSERVATORSHIP FINDING

       Having found father failed to preserve his legal and factual sufficiency challenges,

we need not address the conservatorship issue. Issue three is overruled.

                                        CONCLUSION

       We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                          Alex L. Yarbrough
                                                               Justice

                                              2