His various complaints with the procedural aspects of the support proceeding could, and should, have been raised before the Texas Court of Appeals. See e.g., Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 126, 135-38 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009) (reviewing child-support order); see also Interest of A.S.M., 650 S.W.3d 85, 93 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2021) (addressing argument that trial court did not allow a father to present evidence in support of a motion during a child-support proceeding); In re Mann, 162 S.W.3d 429, 43234 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005) (sustaining appellant's due process argument and voiding the child-support contempt order against him); In re Roisman, 651 S.W.3d 419, 434-37 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2022) (same). Instead, Martin brought this lawsuit more than three years after the 326th District Court issued the child-support order. See Taylor County Case No. 47539-C.Having spurned his state-court opportunities to review the sufficiency of the support proceeding's procedural safeguards, Martin, cannot come to this Court and complain that he was denied due process.

Therefore, the second Eldridge factor weighs in favor that the father was afforded due process of law. See In re A.S.M., 650 S.W.3d 85, 93 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, no pet.) (The trial court did not deny the father procedural due process, as the father was provided notice of the final hearing, appeared through counsel, and was given an opportunity to be heard.).

whether to consider them under the substantive arguments advanced by the parties. See Interest of A.S.M., 650 S.W.3d 85, 91 n.7 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2021, no pet.).

Because Harrell did not raise this issue in the trial court and preserve error for appeal, the issue is waived.See id.; Lenk, 361 S.W.3d at 604; see also In re Interest of A.S.M., 650 S.W.3d 85, 89-92 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2021, no pet.) (concluding, based on record, appellant did not show rendition of improper judgment where trial court granted Rule 91a motion to dismiss in case under Family Code even though Rule 91a does not apply to Family Code cases).

I. BACKGROUND The twists and turns of this contentious divorce are well known to this Court, and most recently recounted in In re A.S.M. , No. 08-19-00212-CV, 650 S.W.3d 85, –––– (Tex.App.--El Paso July, 28, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (affirming judgment dismissing child-support arrearage suit as modified)