In the Interest of A. J., a Child, 12-25-00214-CV, February 18, 2026.
On appeal from the 3rd Judicial District Court of Henderson County.
Synopsis
The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed a jury’s appointment of paternal grandparents as joint managing conservators with the right to designate the child’s primary residence. The court held that the parents’ challenge to the grandparents’ standing was precluded by a prior mandamus ruling and that any alleged error in admitting psychological evaluations was waived or rendered harmless by the admission of cumulative evidence without objection.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision underscores the finality of standing determinations made during interlocutory mandamus proceedings and highlights the “cumulative evidence” trap that frequently ensnares family law litigators. For practitioners, it serves as a stark reminder that even a meritorious hearsay objection can be neutralized if the same or similar evidence is introduced through other witnesses or the parties’ own testimony without a contemporaneous and continuous objection.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The litigation arose from a SAPCR filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) regarding the child, A.J.2. Paternal grandparents B.J. and V.J. intervened, seeking to be named managing conservators. The parents moved to strike the intervention for lack of standing, a motion the trial court denied. This denial was subsequently upheld by the Twelfth Court of Appeals in a prior mandamus proceeding. Following a monitored return of the child to the parents, a jury trial was held to determine conservatorship. During the trial, the Department’s permanency worker testified regarding psychological and psychiatric evaluations of the parents. The parents objected to the admission of these reports on hearsay grounds, arguing they did not meet the business records exception. The jury ultimately appointed the grandparents as joint managing conservators with the right to designate the child’s primary residence, leading to this appeal.
Issues Decided
The court addressed three primary issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the parents’ motion to strike the grandparents’ intervention for lack of standing; (2) whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting third-party psychological evaluations under the business records exception to the hearsay rule; and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the parents’ request for a Rule 702/705 gatekeeping hearing regarding the Department’s caseworker.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1(a)(1), which dictates that for the admission of evidence to constitute reversible error, it must have probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment. Regarding the hearsay challenge, the court analyzed Texas Rule of Evidence 803(6) (the business records exception), but ultimately relied on the “cumulative evidence” doctrine established in Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Armstrong. For the procedural challenge to expert testimony, the court applied Texas Rules of Evidence 702 and 705(b), emphasizing the trial court’s broad discretion in managing the “whether, when, and how” of gatekeeping hearings.
Application
In addressing standing, the court noted that the parents were attempting to relitigate a point of law—standing to intervene—that had already been settled by the appellate court in a previous mandamus. Because the court had already determined that the grandparents met the evidentiary burden to show the parents were unsuitable at the time of intervention, it declined to revisit the issue on direct appeal.
Regarding the evidentiary challenge, the parents argued that the Department was not the proper custodian for evaluations performed by external psychologists. However, the court’s analysis focused on preservation and harm. Because the parents failed to request a running objection and allowed subsequent witnesses—including the parents themselves—to testify about the contents of the evaluations, the diagnoses, and the medications involved, the evidence became cumulative. Under Texas law, the erroneous admission of evidence is harmless if the same or similar evidence is received without objection elsewhere in the record.
Finally, as to the Rule 702 gatekeeping issue, the court reaffirmed that trial courts have significant flexibility in managing expert testimony. The refusal to permit a formal voir dire of the caseworker outside the presence of the jury did not rise to an abuse of discretion, particularly given the broad “gatekeeping” latitude afforded to trial judges.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in its entirety. On the issue of standing, the court held that its prior determination in a mandamus proceeding precluded the parents from challenging the grandparents’ standing on the same grounds in this appeal.
On the evidentiary issue, the court held that even if the psychological evaluations were improperly admitted, the parents failed to demonstrate reversible error. Because the evaluations were cumulative of other testimony admitted without objection, the trial court’s ruling did not cause the rendition of an improper judgment.
Lastly, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in managing the expert witness procedures under Rule 702. The court has the authority to determine the manner in which it conducts gatekeeping functions, and the parents failed to show that the court acted arbitrarily.
Practical Application
This case highlights a critical strategic point for appellate preservation: a hearsay objection to a document is insufficient if you allow the content of that document to be discussed by other witnesses. Appellate counsel should advise trial teams to secure a running objection the moment a contested document is admitted. Furthermore, this case demonstrates that “winning” a monitored return during a Department case does not retroactively strip an intervenor of standing that was properly established at the outset of the litigation.
Checklists
Preserving Objections to Hearsay Documents
- Object to the document on the record as soon as it is offered.
- Clearly state why the business records exception (Rule 803(6)) does not apply (e.g., the entity is merely a “repository” and not the creator of the record).
- Request a running objection to all subsequent testimony regarding the contents of the document.
- Ensure that your own witnesses do not inadvertently “open the door” or offer cumulative evidence of the same facts on direct or cross-examination.
Challenging Expert Testimony (Rule 702/705)
- File a pretrial motion to exclude or a motion for a Daubert/Robinson hearing.
- If the issue arises during trial, make a specific request for a Rule 705(b) voir dire outside the presence of the jury.
- Be prepared to demonstrate how the lack of a gatekeeping hearing specifically prejudiced the ability to challenge the witness’s qualifications or the reliability of their data.
Citation
In the Interest of A. J., a Child, No. 12-25-00214-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 18, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: Full Opinion
~~26a536a0-d183-496f-8d15-15e39ab6b52f~~
Share this content: