Court Opinion

ID: 9384813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 06:07:05.376763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.449672
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed March 31, 2023

                                    S   In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-01210-CV

                     IN THE INTEREST OF S.J., A CHILD

                On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. JC-21-0985-X

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Kennedy
                             Opinion by Justice Nowell
      The Department of Family and Protective Services filed an original petition

for the protection and conservatorship of S.J. and termination of appellant’s parental

rights. After trial, the jury found that appellant (1) abandoned and failed to support

S.J.’s mother and (2) constructively abandoned S.J. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 161.001(b)(1)(H), (N). The jury further found termination of appellant’s parental

rights was in S.J.’s best interest. The trial court signed a termination decree based

on the jury’s findings, and appellant filed this appeal.
      In a single issue, appellant argues the evidence was legally insufficient to

support the finding that termination of his parental rights was in S.J.’s best interest.

We affirm the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights.

      The underlying facts are known to the parties. Because they are not relevant

for disposition of the appeal, we do not recite them here and issue this memorandum

opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

      To present a legal sufficiency challenge on appeal, a party must preserve the

argument. A legal sufficiency argument can be preserved by: (i) a motion for

instructed verdict, (ii) a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, (iii) an

objection to a jury question’s submission, (iv) a motion to disregard a jury’s answer

to a vital fact issue, or (v) a new trial motion. See In re A.H.J., No. 05-15-00501-

CV, 2015 WL 5866256, at *10 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 8, 2015, pet. denied) (mem.

op.). We have reviewed the record, and we find no indication Father made any of

these motions or objections. Accordingly, Father did not preserve a legal sufficiency

challenge. See In re K.D.S.P., No. 05-22-00456-CV, 2022 WL 17090187, at *3

(Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 21, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying ordinary

preservation rules to legal sufficiency challenge in parental-termination case); see

also In re M.M., No. 05-19-00329-CV, 2019 WL 4302255, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Sept. 11, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (same).

                                          –2–
      In view of Father’s failure to preserve his legal sufficiency challenge, we are

obliged to overrule Father’s issue challenging whether it was in S.J.’s best interest

to terminate his parental rights. We affirm the trial court’s order.

                                            /Erin A. Nowell/
                                            ERIN A. NOWELL
                                            JUSTICE

221210F.P05

                                         –3–
                                    S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF S.J., A                     On Appeal from the 305th Judicial
CHILD                                          District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                               Trial Court Cause No. JC-21-0985-X.
No. 05-22-01210-CV                             Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
                                               Justices Partida-Kipness and
                                               Kennedy participating.

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

      It is ORDERED that appellee The Department of Family and Protective
Services recover its costs of this appeal from appellant James Jackson.

Judgment entered March 31, 2023.

                                         –4–