in the Interest of K.M. and C.M., Minor Children ( 2011 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00733-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K.M. and C.M., minor children
From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008-CI-01252
Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 15, 2011
AFFIRMED
Appellant Lisa Lea Hernandez appeals the trial court’s amended order in a suit to modify
the parent-child relationship, which includes a provision barring her from modifying the terms of
the order unless she first posts a $5,000.00 bond with the Bexar County Trust Department. We
affirm.
For the first time, Hernandez argues on appeal that the trial court’s order requiring her to
post bond before filing a modification petition violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and article I, sections 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution. Hernandez,
however, has failed to preserve this issue for appeal. Although Hernandez filed a motion for new
trial, she did not raise this issue in her motion. Nor did Hernandez otherwise raise this issue in
04-10-00733-CV
the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) (explaining that as a prerequisite to presenting a
complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the party’s complaint was made to the
trial court by a timely request, objection or motion; the party stated the grounds for the complaint
with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint; and the party obtained a
ruling from the trial court). Therefore, Hernandez has failed to preserve this issue for appeal. See
Webb v. Webb, 451 U.S. 493, 496-97 (1981) (holding constitutional error was not preserved for
appeal); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex. 2003) (holding petitioner did not preserve issue
that order terminating his parental rights violated his constitutional rights because he raised no
legal argument before the trial court about a constitutional claim); Dreyer v. Greene, 871 S.W.2d
697, 698 (Tex. 1993) (“As a rule, a claim, including a constitutional claim, must have been
asserted in the trial court in order to be raised on appeal.”). 1
We affirm the trial court’s amended order in a suit to modify the parent-child
relationship.
Karen Angelini, Justice
1
We note that Hernandez does not argue fundamental error was committed by the trial court. See Dallas Mkt. Ctr.
Dev. Co. v. Beran & Shelmire, 824 S.W.2d 218, 222-23 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ denied) (“We may consider
only fundamental errors of constitutionality if the issue was not raised in the trial court.”).
-2-