IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00124-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF W.A.F., A CHILD
From the 13th District Court
Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court No. D16-25407-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Briona F. appeals from a judgment that terminated the parent-child relationship
between her and her child, W.A.F. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West 2014). Briona's
rights were terminated based on a jury finding as to four predicate acts in Section
161.001(b)(1) and that termination was in the best interest of the child. Briona complains
that the evidence was legally insufficient for the jury to have found that she constructively
abandoned W.A.F. pursuant to Section 161.001(b)(1)(N) and that termination was in the
best interest of W.A.F. Because we find that Briona's complaints were not preserved, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In proceedings to terminate the parent-child relationship brought under Section
161.001 of the family code, the petitioner must establish one predicate act listed under
subsection (1) of the statute and must also prove that termination is in the best interest of
the child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001; In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005). Both
elements must be established; termination may not be based solely on the best interest of
the child as determined by the trier of fact. Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d
531, 533 (Tex. 1987).
In her first issue, Briona complains that the evidence was legally insufficient for
the jury to have found that she constructively abandoned W.A.F. pursuant to Section
161.001(b)(1)(N). In her second issue, Briona complains that the evidence was legally
insufficient for the jury to have found that termination was in the best interest of W.A.F.
Regarding Briona's first issue, it is apparent from Briona's brief to this Court that
her complaint is at least in part a complaint regarding the use of a broad form question
upon which to base the termination. Briona acknowledges that the evidence was legally
sufficient as to three of the four predicate grounds which the jury could have found to
terminate her rights. Briona's objection is that because the evidence was not sufficient as
to one ground of termination, and it cannot be determined on which ground the
termination was granted because of the broad form submission, the evidence is
insufficient in its entirety. Briona did not object to the trial court regarding the use of the
broad form question.
A complaint to the jury charge is waived unless the trial court is made aware of
the complaint through an objection, timely and plainly, and a ruling is obtained, even in
In the Interest of W.A.F., a Child Page 2
termination proceedings. See In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Tex. 2003); In re A.V., 113
S.W.3d 355, 363 (Tex. 2003); TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. To the degree that Briona's first issue
involves the use of a broad form question, we find that her issue was waived. Id.
Further, the remainder of Briona's first issue and her second issue have also not
been preserved for our review. In order to preserve a legal sufficiency complaint for
appellate review in a termination case tried to a jury, a party must make that complaint
in the trial court by: (1) a motion for new trial; (2) a motion for an instructed verdict; (3)
an objection to the submission of a question in the jury charge; (4) a motion for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict; or (5) a motion to disregard the jury's answer to a question
in the verdict. T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 220-21, 36 Tex. Sup.
Ct. J. 259 (Tex. 1992); In re H.D.B.-M., No. 10-12-00423-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2057,
2013 WL 765699, at *8-9 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 28, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.). None
of the above objections or methods of complaint were raised in the trial court. Because
of this, Briona's first and second issues regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence
were waived. We overrule issues one and two.
CONCLUSION
Because we have found that Briona's complaints were not preserved for review,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
In the Interest of W.A.F., a Child Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 27, 2018
[CV06]
In the Interest of W.A.F., a Child Page 4