Opinion issued August 7, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00173-CV
———————————
IN THE INTEREST OF A. T. O. JR., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 313th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2017-01254J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court terminated the parental rights of B.L.T. (Mother) to her child,
A.T.O. Jr. (referred to as “Adam”). Mother contends that the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting her own affidavit in which she voluntarily relinquished her
parental rights. Mother herself offered the affidavit into evidence, and it was
admitted without objection. She argues that the “district court judge properly could
have reconsidered the admission of the waiver and proceeded to trial on the merits
but chose not to thereby abusing his discretion.”
As support for her argument, Mother cites to a statute that limits the grounds
on which a parent can challenge the termination of parental rights if the parent
signs an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 161.211(c)
(providing that, when termination order is based on unrevoked affidavit
relinquishing parental rights, appeal is limited to issues related to fraud, duress, or
coercion in execution of parent’s affidavit). She contends that the statute should
not limit her ability to argue that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting
her affidavit and that, if the statute does preclude review of her evidentiary issue, it
is unconstitutional. We need not decide whether Section 161.211(c) would
foreclose review of Mother’s evidentiary challenge or whether such preclusion
would be unconstitutional because there is no evidentiary ruling that has been
preserved for review on appeal.
A party may claim error in a ruling to admit evidence only if, among other
things, the complaining party “on the record . . . timely objects or moves to strike”
the evidence and “states the specific ground” for objection “unless it was apparent
from the context.” TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(1). To preserve error for appellate review,
the complaining party must timely and specifically object to the evidence and
obtain a ruling. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). “Error is waived if the complaining party
2
allows the evidence to be introduced without objection.” Bay Area Healthcare
Grp. Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231, 235 (Tex. 2007). “This rule ‘conserves
judicial resources by giving trial courts an opportunity to correct an error before an
appeal proceeds,’ promotes ‘fairness among litigants’ by prohibiting them from
surprising their opponents on appeal, and furthers ‘the goal of accuracy in judicial
decision-making’ by allowing the parties to ‘develop and refine their arguments’
and allowing the trial court to ‘analyze the questions at issue.’” USAA Tex. Lloyds
Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479, 510 (Tex. 2018) (quoting In re B.L.D., 113
S.W.3d 340, 350 (Tex. 2003)).
It is undisputed that Mother signed an affidavit of voluntary relinquishment
of her parental rights to Adam. The affidavit included all statutorily required
recitations, including a list of rights she relinquished and a statement concerning
the finality of her decision to relinquish those rights.1 See TEX. FAM. CODE
§ 161.001(b)(1)(k) (providing for termination of parent-child relationship if court
finds by clear and convincing evidence that parent has executed unrevoked or
irrevocable affidavit relinquishing parental rights).
1
For example, immediately above Mother’s initials on the fourth page of the
affidavit is the following paragraph, which, in its original form, has “all caps”
formatting:
I declare that this affidavit for voluntary relinquishment of parental rights is
and shall be final, permanent, and irrevocable. I fully understand that, if I
change my mind at any time, I can never force the agency to destroy,
revoke, rescind, or return this affidavit and that I cannot take back or undo
this affidavit in any way.
3
Mother initialed every page of the affidavit, signed the last page, and had the
document witnessed by two individuals and notarized. At the proceeding to
terminate Mother’s parental rights to Adam, Mother requested that the trial court
admit her affidavit into evidence. There were no objections, and the trial court
admitted her affidavit into evidence.
At no time during trial, after trial but before entry of judgment, or after entry
of judgment, did Mother object to this evidence, move the trial court to reconsider
its ruling, or seek a new trial. Nor has she argued that any exception applies that
would relieve her of her obligation to preserve error through a timely objection and
ruling. Accordingly, Mother has not preserved for appeal an issue on which to
challenge the trial court’s discretion in admitting her evidence, regardless if
Section 161.211(c) would permit it. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. We overrule Mother’s
two issues.
Conclusion
We affirm.
Harvey Brown
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey.
4