i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00791-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.C., N.C., and J.N.H.
From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2007-PA-02742
Honorable James F. Clawson, Jr., Judge Presiding1
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 1, 2009
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for new trial
following the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights. We affirm.
In a single issue on appeal, appellant complains that the associate judge who denied her
motion for new trial on the grounds that it was frivolous was not the same judge who heard the
underlying termination proceeding. Appellant contends the appropriate remedy here is to abate the
1
… The Honorable James F. Clawson, Jr., sitting by assignment, presided over the underlying termination
proceeding. The Honorable Richard Garcia, Associate Judge, presided over the hearing on appellant’s motion for new
trial.
04-08-00791-CV
appeal and direct the Regional Administrative Judge to “arrange for [the trial judge] to hear” the
motion for new trial.
Appellant initially sought to have the motion for new trial and statement of appellate points
heard by the trial judge; however, an associate judge was assigned to hear the matter. At the new
trial hearing, appellant did not object to having the associate judge hear the motion and statement
of appellate points. In In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 353 (Tex. 2003), the Supreme Court held that
error preservation rules apply to parental rights termination cases. The Court stated there is a strong
interest in Texas in ensuring that our trial courts have the opportunity to correct errors. Id.
“Appellate review of potentially reversible error never presented to a trial court would undermine
the Legislature’s dual intent to ensure finality in these cases and expedite their resolution.” Id. We
recognize there may be logistical issues when a visiting judge presides over termination cases and
then is unavailable to hear the motion for new trial and statement of appellate points within the
statutorily expedited time frame; however, we must apply the error preservation rules. Because
appellant did not object to having the associate judge hear the motion for new trial, we conclude the
complaint was not preserved for our review. TEX . R. APP . P. 33.1.
CONCLUSION
We overrule appellant’s issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
-2-