Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-19679
Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans.
DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE.
an appeal from the trial court's July 28, 2014 order
adjudicating parentage and final order in suit affecting the
parent-child relationship ("final judgment of July 28,
2014"). In five issues, Mother challenges the trial
court's calculation of "unpaid child support"
by Father and an October 23, 2014 order appointing Tim
Gonzalez as guardian ad litem for K.V.K. and ordering Mother
to pay half of his fees. We conclude Mother failed to preserve
her complaints concerning the "unpaid child
support" and her complaints about the order appointing
the ad litem are not properly before us. Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court's judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
suit was filed in October 2012, about a month before
K.V.K.'s birth. Although Mother and Father had lived
together, they were no longer dating at the time of filing.
record reflects a temporary orders hearing was held July 8,
2013. At the hearing, the trial court heard evidence that
Father had a "serious history of drug use, " and,
although he had no income, he "had resources made
available to him in a consistent basis through his
family." Based on that evidence, the trial court
appointed Mother temporary sole managing conservator of
K.V.K., granted Father weekly supervised visitation, and
ordered Father to pay monthly child support of $970 beginning
July 15, 2013.
did not pay child support as ordered, but over the next year,
he worked on his sobriety and reached an agreement with
Mother on the issues of conservatorship, possession and
access, and child support going forward. At trial, evidence
was presented showing Father owed $10, 571.74 in child
support, Father had provided some clothing for K.V.K. between
the date of her birth and the date of the temporary orders
hearing, and Father's parents had paid $4000 for repairs
at Mother's house and given her a $500 Walmart gift card
and $500 worth of clothes and toys for K.V.K. The trial court
accepted the agreement of the parties and, based on the
evidence presented, granted Mother a judgment for $6632 in
child support arrears, all as set out in the final judgment
of July 28, 2014.
PROCEDURAL LIMITS TO ISSUES RAISED
appellate courts are limited to reviewing issues that are (1)
properly preserved and (2) arise from an appealable
interlocutory order, final judgment that disposes of all
parties and claims in the record, or orders subsumed within
the final judgment. See Tex. R. App. P.
33.1(a)(1)(A) (error is preserved when timely objection or
motion is presented to trial court "with sufficient
specificity to make the trial court aware of the
complaint"); see also Jack B. Anglin Co.
Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (appeals
may only be taken from final judgments that dispose of all
legal issues between all parties or from interlocutory orders
authorized by statute); Gunnerman v. Basic Capital Mgmt.,
Inc., 106 S.W.3d 821, 824 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet.
denied) (appeal from final judgment brings forward earlier
orders that merged into final judgment). Issues that fail to
satisfy these prerequisites present nothing for review.
Unpaid Child Support
first two issues challenge the trial court's calculation
of "unpaid child support." Specifically, Mother
complains the trial court erred in crediting Father's
unpaid child support obligation with his parents' payment
for repairs to her house and his parents' gifts of
clothes, toys, and a gift card. However, Mother failed to
preserve those issues. See Tex. R. App. P.
33.1(a)(1)(A). The record reflects the trial court orally
pronounced this ruling at the conclusion of trial, but Mother
did not object. The record further reflects Mother filed a
motion for new trial and an amended motion for new trial.
each, Mother listed several grounds for a new trial, but the
alleged error in allowing a credit for Father's
parents' gifts and payment of repairs was not one of
them. See id; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 321
(requiring motion for new trial to "briefly refer to
that part of the ruling of the court . . . complained
of"). Accordingly, these issues present nothing for us
Appointment of Ad Litem
third, fourth, and fifth issues complain of the trial
court's October 2014 order appointing Tim Gonzalez as
guardian ad litem for K.V.K. and ordering Mother to pay half
of his fees. That order was rendered by the trial court in
response to Gonzalez's September 4, 2014 "Motion for
Continuation of Appointment of Guardian ad Litem for K.V.K.,
A Child" ("motion for continuation"). In his
motion for continuation, Gonzalez cited his prior service as
ad litem for K.V.K. during the pendency of the suit for
parentage and affecting the parent-child relationship.
Gonzalez was discharged from any further service as ad litem
in that action by the final judgment of July 28, 2014.
However, he urged the trial court to reappoint him as ad
litem, alleging Father was being denied possession and access
to K.V.K. because Mother had failed to comply with certain
provisions in the final judgment of July 28, 2014 concerning