Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
IN THE INTEREST OF J.Z.B. AND M.M.B., CHILDREN
Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-14-12689-T
Justices Bridges, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle
L. CARLYLE, JUSTICE
suit affecting the parent-child relationship, Mother,
proceeding pro se, appeals the trial court's final order
regarding her two children with Father ("the
children"). Mother challenges the order's provisions
addressing child support, visitation, and her right to
designate the children's primary residence. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
Office of the Attorney General of Texas filed this case in
July 2014, seeking determinations on conservatorship and
support issues respecting the children. Following a
hearing at which Father appeared and Mother did not, the
trial court signed a February 2015 order requiring Father to
pay medical and child support.
December 2016, Father filed a motion to modify the
parent-child relationship. Mother filed a general denial
answer and a "motion to modify temporary orders."
At a hearing on both motions, Father, Mother, and the OAG
the hearing, Mother testified she and Father had
"reached an agreement about custody, visitation, and
child support" as follows: (1) she and Father will be
joint managing conservators of the children; (2) she will be
"the parent who determines where the children
live"; (3) the children's visitation with Father
will be every Saturday, with exchanges taking place at a
local restaurant; and (4) Father is to pay no child support.
Also, Mother stated the agreement respecting child support is
in the children's best interest because Father "has
no job" and "it's not going to do any good to
put [Father] in jail." Father testified he was "in
agreement with" Mother being "the parent who
determines the residence of the children within Dallas County
or any county that touches Dallas County" and the other
terms described above. The trial court stated it would
"render judgment on all of the elements that [Father and
Mother] are in agreement on."
trial court's final order appointed Father and Mother
joint managing conservators, gave Mother "the exclusive
right to designate the primary residence of the children and
maintain the children's primary residence in DALLAS or
any contiguous county," allowed for Father's
visitation on Saturdays with exchanges taking place as
described above, and provided that Father would pay no child
support. Mother timely appealed.
construe Mother's appellate brief to assert three issues:
(1) she does not "agree with [Father] having to pay no
child support"; (2) she is "having problems in
visitations with [Father]"; and (3) she is unable to
"go to any other state to raise my children if I decided
to do so."
testified at the hearing that she and Father had
"reached an agreement" on the matters pertinent to
her appellate complaints. She did not revoke that agreement
during the hearing or assert any objection in the trial court
to the terms described at the hearing respecting those
matters. Nor has she alleged fraud, collusion, or
misrepresentation. A party cannot appeal from a judgment to
which she has consented or agreed absent an allegation and
proof of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation.
Boufaissal v. Boufaissal, 251 S.W.3d 160, 161-62
(Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Baw v. Baw,
949 S.W.2d 764, 766 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no writ);
Gillum v. Republic Health Corp., 778 S.W.2d 558, 562
(Tex. App.-Dallas 1989, no writ)). A party's consent to
the trial judge's entry of judgment waives any error,
except for jurisdictional error, contained in the judgment,
and that party has nothing to properly present for appellate
review. Id. "The rationale of such a rule is
that a party will not be allowed to complain on appeal of an
action or ruling which she invited or induced."
Id.; see also In re D.J., No.
07-18-00386-CV, 2019 WL 946919, at *3 (Tex. App.-Amarillo
Feb. 26, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (party waived challenge to
conservatorship terms by agreeing to terms during hearing);
In re T.G., No. 09-16-00250-CV, 2016 WL 7157242, at
*4 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Dec. 8, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (by
agreeing to terms of SAPCR order during hearing, mother
waived error respecting those terms). Further, as a
prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review,
the record must show the complaint was made to the trial
court by a timely request, objection, or motion. Tex.R.App.P.
33.1(a)(1); see Pagare v. Pagare, 344 S.W.3d 575,
582 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (father failed to
preserve issue respecting child support where he did not
object to trial court's oral rendition at hearing or file
motion for new trial); London v. London, 94 S.W.3d
139, 151 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.)
(mother waived issue asserting trial court erred by
restricting children's primary residence to one county,
where she failed to raise argument orally or in writing to
conclude Mother has waived any error as to the agreed terms.
See Boufaissal, 251 S.W.3d at 161-62; In re
D.J., 2019 WL 946919, at *3; In re T.G., 2016
WL 7157242, at *4. Further, Mother has not preserved her
complaints for this Court's review. See Tex. R.
App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Pagare, 344 S.W.3d at 582;
London, 94 S.W.3d at 151.