Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.W. AND N.N.G., CHILDREN
Submitted: November 27, 2017
Appeal from the County Court at Law Lamar County, Texas Trial
Court No. 85116.
Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
K. Burgess Justice
Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department)
filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights to
her children, Mandy and Nelly,  on the grounds that she had: (1)
knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the children to remain
in conditions or surroundings which endangered their physical
or emotional well-being; (2) engaged in conduct or knowingly
placed the children with persons who engaged in conduct which
endangered their physical or emotional well-being; (3) failed
to comply with the provisions of a court order that
specifically established the actions necessary for her to
obtain the return of the children who had been in the
permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the
Department for not less than nine months as a result of their
removal for abuse or neglect; and (4) used a controlled
substance in a manner that endangered the health or safety of
the children and either (i) failed to complete a
court-ordered substance-abuse treatment program or (ii)
continued to abuse a controlled substance after completion of
a court-ordered substance-abuse treatment program.
See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D),
(E), (O), (P) (West Supp. 2017).
trial before a Lamar County jury, Mother's parental
rights to Mandy and Nelly were terminated. Mother does not
challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the
evidence. Instead, in her sole issue on appeal,
Mother argues that the trial court should have excluded
testimony from both the Department's caseworker and the
Court Appointed Special Advocate that termination of
Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the
children. Specifically, Mother points out that the Department
failed to qualify the witnesses as expert witnesses.
Accordingly, she argues that the trial court should have
excluded the lay witness testimony because it was opinion
testimony that was not helpful to the jury in determining a
fact in issue.
State argues that Mother's sole issue on appeal was not
preserved. We agree. In order to preserve error on this
the record must show that:
(1) the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely
request, objection, or motion that:
(A) stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining
party sought from the trial court 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)(1)(A).
when the Department asked each witness whether they believed
that Mother's parental rights should be terminated,
Mother objected on the ground that the question
"[c]all[ed] for a conclusion." No further
explanation was provided. After this objection was overruled,
both witnesses answered in the affirmative.
that Mother's objection that the Department's
question called for a conclusion was not specific enough to
inform the trial court that she was objecting under Rule 701
of the Texas Rules of Evidence. "An objection at trial
that does not comport with a point of error on appeal
preserves nothing for review." Anderson v.
Snoddy, No. 06-14-00096-CV, 2015 WL 5634564, at *11
(Tex. App.-Texarkana Sept. ...