In the Interest of N.N.G., a Child Appeal from County Court at Law of Lamar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-17-00080-CV IN THE INTEREST OF N.N.G., A CHILD On Appeal from the County Court at Law Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 85116 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Following a jury trial, Father’s parental rights to his child, N.N.G., were terminated. On appeal, Father argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s finding that termination of his parental rights was in the child’s best interest. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(2) (West Supp. 2017). Because we find that Father has failed to preserve these issues for appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. We have previously held that, [a]s 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 re A.L., 486 S.W.3d 129–30 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no pet.) (quoting In re C.Y., No. 0215-00152-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 Father failed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict in any of the manners specified above, or otherwise before the trial court, we find that he has failed to preserve his legal sufficiency challenge for appeal. In addition, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require the filing of a motion for new trial as a prerequisite to asserting on appeal the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury finding. Id. at 30 (citing 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.); see 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. (quoting O.M.H., 2012 WL 2783502, at *2) (footnote omitted) (citing In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547 (Tex. 2003)); see In re L.G.D., No. 06-17-00061-CV, 2017 WL 4507673, at *1 (Tex. App.— Texarkana Oct. 10, 2017, no pet.). Father’s points of error regarding legal and factual sufficiency are overruled. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: November 27, 2017 December 6, 2017 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.
