See Discovery Operating, Inc. v. Baskin, 855 S.W.2d 884, 887 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993, no writ) ("A party does not possess the right to object to the assignment of a visiting judge before the assignment takes place."); see also Greer v. Reaux, No. 13-18-00433-CV, 2020 WL 948368, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Feb. 27, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); In re S.Q., No. 04-18-00119-CV, 2018 WL 3129434, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 27, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re Carnera, No. 05-16-00055-CV, 2016 WL 323654, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 27, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

As discussed above, the Collinses' objection to the visiting judge was not timely, and the Collinses made no objection to the judge continuing to sit after she mistakenly signed an order granting the untimely objection. Cf.In re S.Q. , No. 04-18-00119-CV, 2018 WL 3129434, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 27, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("[A] party impliedly withdraws an objection by participating in a hearing or trial without advising the assigned judge that an objection has been filed and seeking a ruling." (citing In re Carnera , No. 05-16-00055-CV, 2016 WL 323654, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 27, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) ) ). The Collinses have therefore not preserved anything for review, and we overrule their second issue. We further note that the judge subsequently signed the final judgment, which stated that the objection to her sitting was overruled because it was not timely.