In the Interest of S.J., a Child v. the State of Texas
This text of In the Interest of S.J., a Child v. the State of Texas (In the Interest of S.J., a Child v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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–
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of S.J., a Child v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-sj-a-child-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2023.