In the Interest of E.S., A Minor Child--Appeal from 73rd Judicial District Court of Bexar County

No. 04-97-00835-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF E.S., a Child
From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 96-PA-01416
Honorable Juan Gallardo, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 30, 1998

AFFIRMED

Marie Isabel Salazar ("Salazar") appeals a decree terminating her parental rights to her daughter, E.S. In one point of error, Salazar contends the trial court erred when it took judicial notice of a case file from a prior suit in which Salazar's rights were terminated with respect to her six other children. We overrule Salazar's point and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Procedural and Factual History

E.S. was born on October 24, 1996, with physical deformities thought to be caused by Salazar's inhalant abuse. Salazar was incarcerated at the time E.S. was born. Salazar admitted that she used "heroin, alcohol, spray, and marijuana" while she was pregnant.

At the time of the hearing on the suit to terminate Salazar's parental rights, Salazar had twenty-one convictions for inhalant abuse. Four of these convictions occurred after E.S. was born. Numerous efforts had been made to establish service plans for Salazar to retain her parental rights; however, Salazar either failed to comply with the plans, or the programs to which she was referred declined to accept her due to her assaultive behavior.

At the hearing, Salazar's testimony was confusing and damaging to her case. She testified that (1) she was pregnant with E.S. for about twelve months; (2) she failed to attend one of the substance abuse programs because she needed to get her clothes together; and (3) she intended to support herself with food stamps and S.S.I. In addition, Salazar was residing with her mother at the time of the hearing, which the results of a home study showed would not be an acceptable place for E.S. to live.

Discussion

In her sole point of error, Salazar contends that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the case file from the prior case in which her rights to her other six children were terminated. Salazar asserts that the trial court could not take judicial notice of a file from another court. The Department of Protective and Regulatory Services ("Department") counters that Salazar failed to preserve this error for our review, and that any error was in fact harmless. We agree that the asserted error has not been preserved for our review, but our analysis of the preservation issue differs slightly from the Department's.

In response to the Department's request at the hearing that the trial court take judicial notice of the entire case file from the prior termination case, and the trial judge's inquiry as to whether any reason existed for him not to review the matters contained in the file, Salazar's attorney responded:

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I would object because we're not here on those children. They have already been terminated on. And you've already got a copy of -- certified copy of the decree of termination. That's irrelevant.

On appeal, Salazar seeks to assert that it was improper for the trial court to take judicial notice of the case file because it was from a different court. The error raised on appeal does not comport with the general relevancy objection made at trial; therefore, nothing has been preserved for our review. See Phippen v. Deere and Co., 965 S.W.2d 713, 716 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1998, no pet.); Gutierrez v. County of Zapata, 951 S.W.2d 831, 844 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no writ).

Salazar's point of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PHIL HARDBERGER,

CHIEF JUSTICE

DO NOT PUBLISH

Return to
4th Court of Appeals Opinions