Opinion
04-21-00133-CV
01-26-2022
IN THE INTEREST OF E.E.S., a Child
From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019PA01363 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena Chapa, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ, JUSTICE
AFFIRMED
In this parental rights appeal concerning Mom's right to visitation as a possessory conservator, Mom's sole issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by rendering an ambiguous visitation order. Mom neither objected at the time nor submitted any request for reconsideration after trial. Mom now argues that the visitation order is unenforceable and should be vacated. Because Mom waived the issue for appeal, we affirm the trial court's order.
Dad was a party to the cause at trial but did not appeal. We recite only the facts pertaining to Mom and the child.
Background
At trial on the potential termination of Mom's parental rights, the trial court heard testimony about the circumstances leading to E.E.S.'s removal as well as Mom's poor performance on the service plan that followed.
We use an alias to protect the child's identity. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex.R.App.P. 9.8(b).
E.E.S. went into the care and custody of the Department of Family and Protective Services after Mom's boyfriend reportedly hit E.E.S.'s older sister. At the time, Mom was reportedly using drugs daily. The Department created a service plan for Mom that included a psychological evaluation and drug assessment with recommended treatment, domestic violence education, parenting education, and the Narcotics Anonymous twelve-step program. She was asked to show stability with employment and housing. Mom completed only the drug assessment.
Mom missed half of her scheduled visits with E.E.S. At some point, Mom sent a suicidal text message to E.E.S. After that, Mom was ordered not to visit E.E.S.
E.E.S. was placed with foster parents. She began to show improved self-confidence. She was talking more, laughing, and doing well in school.
At the conclusion of trial, the Department and the attorney ad litem recommended a possessory conservatorship for Mom with some visitation allowed. Mom suggested that she be allowed a minimum of two visits with E.E.S. per month:
Now, Judge, I'm representing to the court that my client indicates that she does not have a contentious relationship with the [foster parents]. So, that's why our request would be, as long as they are willing to, that they be allowed to supervise and allow contact no less than twice a month for a couple of hours.
The attorney ad litem objected to any minimum number of visits for Mom and E.E.S. as a potential burden on E.E.S. and her foster parents. The attorney ad litem recommended that the trial court find it not in E.E.S.'s best interest to order specific dates and times for visits.
In its oral pronouncement, the trial court appointed Mom as a possessory conservator and lifted the no-visit order against Mom. The trial court left visits to the foster parents' discretion.
In its written order, the trial court reiterated that visits with Mom should occur at the discretion of E.E.S.'s foster parents. Mom made no objection nor any request for reconsideration. She now appeals.
Issue Waived
Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1, a party must make a timely request, objection, or motion that states the grounds for their complaint "with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context." Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a); accord George v. Jeppeson, 238 S.W.3d 463, 469 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); In re G.M., 14-20-00044-CV, 2021 WL 1881048, at *5 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 11, 2021, no pet.); In re A.J.I.L., 14-16-00350-CV, 2016 WL 6110450, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 18, 2016, pet. denied). Here, Mom requested two visits per month if the foster parents were willing to agree to it. Mom indicated to the trial court that she did not have a contentious relationship with the foster parents. She did not argue that the visitation terms must be specific and unambiguous. The record does not reflect that Mom disagreed with visits occurring at the foster parents' discretion. She gave no indication to the trial court that there was a potential error in its ruling. Based on the record before us, we conclude that Mom failed to preserve her visitation issue for appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).
Conclusion
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that Mom waived the issue of visitation. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's order.