rules governing error in Texas

2025See M.L. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-22- 00541-CV, 2023 WL 2025710 , at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 16, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); B.S., 2022 WL 16842084 , at *2–3; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 928 (“We have held that the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error.”); In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 , 350–51 (Tex. 2003) (holding that fundamental-error doctrine does not apply to procedural-preservation rules, nor does due process require a

2024App. P. 33.1; Rigal v. S.M., No. 03-10-00008-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 6196 , at *6-7 (Tex. App.—Austin, July 29, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005) (observing that “the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights”)).

2025See M.L. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-22- 00541-CV, 2023 WL 2025710 , at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 16, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); B.S., 2022 WL 16842084 , at *2–3; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 928 (“We have held that the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error.”); In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 , 350–51 (Tex. 2003) (holding that fundamental-error doctrine does not apply to procedural-preservation rules, nor does due process require a

2023P. 33.1(a); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005) (“We have held that the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error.”); In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 354 (“[D]ue process does not mandate that appellate courts review unpreserved complaints of . . . error 14 The Court reviews the trial court’s decision whether to appoint counsel in a private termination suit for an abuse of discretion.

2021Id. (citing Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2001) (concluding constitutional right to assert paternity claim, not raised in trial court, was waived)); see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005) (“We have held that the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error.”).

2020Id. (citing Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2001) (concluding constitutional right to assert paternity claim, not raised in trial court, was waived)); see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005) (“We have held that the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving –30– termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error.”).

2011In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 353; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005) ("the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error"); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 711 (in parental-termination appeal, due process argument was not preserved below; "Both we and the United States Supreme Court have held that constitutional error was waived in comparable circumstances."); Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (court

2011In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 353; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005) ("the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error"); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 711 (in parental-termination appeal, due process argument was not preserved below; "Both we and the United States Supreme Court have held that constitutional error was waived in comparable circumstances."); Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (court

2011In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 353; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005) ("the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error"); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 711 (in parental-termination appeal, due process argument was not preserved below; "Both we and the United States Supreme Court have held that constitutional error was waived in comparable circumstances."); Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (court

2011In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 353 ; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex.2005) (“the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other eases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error”); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 711 (in parental-termination appeal, due process argument was not preserved below; “Both we and the United States Supreme Court have held that constitutional error was waived in comparable circumstances.”); Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (court

2007See In re K.A.F. , 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex.), cert. denied , __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 483 , 163 L.Ed.2d 364 (2005).

2007See In re K.A.F. , 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 483 (2005).

2023“The rules governing error preservation apply to civil cases involving termination of parental rights.” M.M.V. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 455 S.W.3d 186, 190 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (first citing In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005); and then citing Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regul.

2021See In re T.B., 594 S.W.3d 773 , 778 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, no pet.) (holding that complaint was not preserved because it was not raised at trial); In re A.R., No. 02-18-00311-CV, 2019 WL 1186963 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 14, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“We normally do not review issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.”); M.M.V. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 455 S.W.3d 186, 190 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (“The rules governing error preservation apply to civil cases involving termination.”); Pineridge Assocs., L.P. v. Ridgepine, LLC, 337 S

2021The court then evaluated whether due process nonetheless required review of an unpreserved complaint regarding charge error in that termination case, by identifying and balancing the three factors delineated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976), and as required by Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 27 , balancing the “net weight” of those factors against the presumption that our preservation law does not permit review of unpreserved error in civil cases.

2020The court then evaluated whether due process nonetheless required review of an unpreserved complaint regarding charge error in that termination case, by identifying and balancing the three factors delineated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)14, and as required by Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 27 , balancing the “net weight” of those factors against the presumption that our preservation law does not permit review of unpreserved error in civil cases.

2011In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 353; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005) ("the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error"); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 711 (in parental-termination appeal, due process argument was not preserved below; "Both we and the United States Supreme Court have held that constitutional error was waived in comparable circumstances."); Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (court

2011In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 353 ; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex.2005) (“the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other eases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error”); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 711 (in parental-termination appeal, due process argument was not preserved below; “Both we and the United States Supreme Court have held that constitutional error was waived in comparable circumstances.”); Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (court

2011In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 353; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005) ("the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other cases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error"); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 711 (in parental-termination appeal, due process argument was not preserved below; "Both we and the United States Supreme Court have held that constitutional error was waived in comparable circumstances."); Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (court

2011In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 353 ; see also In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex.2005) (“the rules governing error preservation must be followed in cases involving termination of parental rights, as in other eases in which a complaint is based on constitutional error”); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d at 711 (in parental-termination appeal, due process argument was not preserved below; “Both we and the United States Supreme Court have held that constitutional error was waived in comparable circumstances.”); Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 861 (Tex.2001) (court

1975Beck Company, 449 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex.1969), the Court restated the rules governing the defense of accord and satisfaction.

1974Beck Company, 449 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex.1969), Justice Steakley restated the rules governing the defense of accord and satisfaction.

2007See In re K.A.F. , 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex.), cert. denied , __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 483 , 163 L.Ed.2d 364 (2005).

1983Ewing v. State, 549 S.W.2d 392 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Williams v. State, 535 S.W.2d 352 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Faz v. State, 510 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Witt v. State, 475 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Jones v. State, 623 S.W.2d 476, 479 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1981, no writ).