In the Interest of A.L., a Child Appeal from 307th District Court of Gregg County (opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-15-00097-CV IN THE INTEREST OF A.L., A CHILD On Appeal from the 307th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014-2264-DR Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Opinion by Justice Moseley OPINION Following a jury trial, Mother’s parental rights to her child, A.L., were terminated. On appeal, Mother argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s finding that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(2) (West Supp. 2015). Because we find that Mother has failed to preserve these issues for appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. As a prerequisite to bringing a legal sufficiency challenge in a parental-rights termination appeal following a jury trial, a parent must raise the legal sufficiency challenge with the trial court in either: “(1) a motion for instructed verdict; (2) a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); (3) an objection to the submission of the question to the jury; (4) a motion to disregard the jury’s answer to a vital fact question; or (5) a motion for new trial.” In Interest of C.Y., No. 02-15-00152-CV, 2015 WL 6394559, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 22, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re D.J.J., 178 S.W.3d 424, 426–27 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.)). Here, because Mother failed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict in any of the manners specified above, or otherwise, we find that she has failed to preserve her legal sufficiency challenge for appeal. Further, “[t]he Texas Rules of Civil Procedure specify that the filing of a motion for new trial is a prerequisite to present ‘[a] complaint of factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury finding.’” In re O.M.H., No. 06-12-00013-CV, 2012 WL 2783502, at *2 (Tex. App.— Texarkana July 10, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting TEX. R. CIV. P. 324(b)(2); Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Tex. 1991)). Where, as here, there is no motion for new trial raising factual 2 sufficiency challenges to the jury’s verdict, “[f]actual sufficiency is not preserved for appeal.” Id. (footnote omitted) (citing In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547 (Tex. 2003)); see C.Y., 2015 WL 6394559, at *2; In re J.V., No. 02-15-00036-CV, 2015 WL 4148500, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 9, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re E.K., No. 13-14-00720-CV, 2015 WL 2353292, at *7–8 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 14, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re C.D.K., 64 S.W.3d 679, 681–82 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, no pet.). Mother’s points of error regarding legal and factual sufficiency are overruled. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: February 3, 2016 February 10, 2016 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
