In the Interest of A.W., N.W., N.W., P.W., Children, 13-25-00633-CV, May 07, 2026.
On appeal from 404th District Court of Cameron County, Texas
Synopsis
After a jury trial terminating parental rights, a parent cannot obtain appellate review of legal- or factual-sufficiency complaints unless those complaints were preserved through one of the recognized post-verdict or trial-stage motions. Here, because Mother filed none of them—including no motion for new trial to preserve factual sufficiency—the Thirteenth Court held her sufficiency issues were waived and affirmed the termination order.
Relevance to Family Law
Although this is a termination case, its practical force extends well beyond CPS litigation. Texas family lawyers trying jury cases in SAPCR modification, conservatorship, possession, relocation, marital tort, and even property disputes should treat this opinion as a reminder that appellate complaints about evidentiary sufficiency live or die on preservation, not merit. In other words, trial strategy in family cases must include a post-verdict preservation strategy; otherwise, potentially viable appellate issues may be forfeited before the notice of appeal is even filed.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Department sought termination of Mother’s parental rights to four children. The record, as summarized by the court, included evidence that the Department became involved after reports concerning substance exposure, instability, and neglectful supervision after Mother moved to Texas. There was testimony that the children were observed dirty and unbathed, that Mother relied on a caregiver with a criminal and drug-related background, and that Mother’s housing and employment remained unstable.
The Department also presented evidence concerning Mother’s limited contact with the children after removal. According to the opinion, Mother made only one in-person visit, was inconsistent with virtual visitation, and later moved out of state. The record further included testimony that Department personnel attempted to meet with her in Arkansas without success and that a more recent drug test was positive for amphetamines and marijuana. The jury found multiple predicate grounds under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)—including subsections (D), (E), (N), and (O)—and also found that termination was in the children’s best interest.
On appeal, however, the decisive facts were procedural rather than substantive. Mother challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting constructive abandonment under subsection (N) and best interest, but she did not file a motion for instructed verdict, JNOV, motion to disregard, objection to jury submission, or motion for new trial.
Issues Decided
- Whether Mother preserved her legal-sufficiency challenge to the evidence supporting constructive abandonment under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(N) and the best-interest finding after a jury trial.
- Whether Mother preserved her factual-sufficiency challenge to the same findings without filing a motion for new trial.
- Whether the appellate court needed to address Mother’s challenge to subsection (N) where the jury also found other unchallenged predicate grounds.
- Whether Mother preserved her complaint that the termination order omitted findings required by Texas Family Code § 161.001(f) and (g).
Rules Applied
The court applied standard Texas preservation principles governing jury trials, including Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a). For legal sufficiency after a jury trial, the court reiterated the recognized preservation vehicles:
- Motion for instructed verdict
- Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
- Objection to submission of the question to the jury
- Motion to disregard the jury’s answer to a vital fact question
- Motion for new trial
For factual sufficiency, the court relied on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 324(b)(2), which requires a motion for new trial as a prerequisite to complain that the evidence is factually insufficient to support a jury finding.
The opinion also drew on parental-rights authorities emphasizing that ordinary preservation rules apply in termination appeals, including In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. 2003), and cases recognizing that a court may in limited circumstances review unpreserved sufficiency complaints if counsel unjustifiably failed to preserve error, as discussed in In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005). The court noted that Mother made no such argument.
Finally, as to the predicate-ground challenge, the court relied on the settled rule that only one predicate ground plus best interest is necessary to support termination, and that an appellate court need not address a challenge to a single non-endangerment ground when other predicate grounds remain unchallenged. The opinion cited In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019), and Toliver v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services, 217 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Application
The court’s analysis was straightforward and unforgiving in the way preservation cases usually are. Mother asked the court of appeals to review whether the evidence supported constructive abandonment and best interest, but she arrived on appeal without having taken any of the required procedural steps in the trial court. Because the case was tried to a jury, the court did not treat sufficiency review as automatically available. Instead, it applied the same preservation architecture that governs civil jury trials generally.
That mattered most on factual sufficiency. Texas procedure is explicit: if a party wants to argue that a jury finding is against the great weight or factually insufficient, a motion for new trial is required. Mother filed none. Her legal-sufficiency complaints failed for the same reason because she likewise omitted every recognized preservation device for no-evidence review after a jury trial.
The court then reinforced the point by noting what Mother did not argue. She did not contend that her counsel unjustifiably failed to preserve error, which is the narrow path some parental-rights appellants attempt to invoke under In re J.P.B.. Without that argument, the court had no occasion to consider bypassing ordinary preservation rules.
The subsection (N) issue also had an independent defect. Even if preserved, it targeted only constructive abandonment. The jury had also found subsections (D), (E), and (O), and Mother did not challenge those grounds. Because termination can stand on a single supported predicate ground plus best interest, the court explained that it would not need to reach a challenge to subsection (N) alone.
The statutory-findings issue met the same fate. Mother complained that the termination order omitted findings required by the 2023 amendments to Family Code § 161.001(f) and (g), but the court concluded that complaint, too, had not been preserved.
Holding
The court held that Mother waived her legal-sufficiency complaints to the jury’s subsection (N) and best-interest findings because she did not preserve those complaints through any recognized motion or objection following the jury trial. As a result, the court refused to review the merits of those sufficiency challenges.
The court separately held that Mother waived her factual-sufficiency complaints because she did not file a motion for new trial, which Rule 324(b)(2) makes mandatory for factual-insufficiency review of a jury finding. In termination cases, the court emphasized, ordinary preservation rules still govern.
The court further held that Mother’s challenge to subsection (N) would not warrant relief in any event because she left untouched the jury’s findings on other predicate grounds—subsections (D), (E), and (O)—and only one predicate ground is necessary to support termination when accompanied by a best-interest finding.
Finally, the court held that Mother’s complaint regarding omission of statutory findings in the termination order was not preserved. The termination order was therefore affirmed.
Practical Application
For Texas family litigators, this opinion is a procedural warning shot. If your case is tried to a jury, appellate preservation must be calendared and executed with the same discipline as charge objections and witness outlines. Termination cases are the most obvious setting, but the principle is equally relevant in jury-tried custody modifications, conservatorship disputes, Hague-related fact questions submitted to a jury where permitted, reimbursement issues, fraud-on-the-community claims, and property characterization disputes.
There are at least three strategic takeaways. First, if you anticipate any appellate sufficiency challenge, decide before the verdict which preservation vehicle fits the issue and who on the team is responsible for filing it. Second, never assume the gravity of parental-rights litigation will cause an appellate court to relax preservation requirements; this opinion says the opposite. Third, if a judgment contains missing statutory findings or defective recitations, raise the omission promptly in the trial court through an objection, motion to modify, motion for judgment, or motion for new trial so the record reflects both the complaint and the requested correction.
For appellees, this case is equally useful. When facing a termination appeal built around sufficiency rhetoric, preservation should be the first section of the response brief, not an afterthought. And in multi-ground termination cases, appellees should press the independent point that an appellant who attacks only one non-endangerment predicate ground may not obtain reversal if other predicate grounds remain intact.
Checklists
Preserving Legal-Sufficiency Complaints After a Jury Trial
- Evaluate before charge conference whether a no-evidence complaint may arise on any predicate ground or best-interest question.
- Preserve legal sufficiency through at least one recognized vehicle:
- motion for instructed verdict
- objection to submission of the question
- motion to disregard the jury’s answer to a vital fact question
- motion for JNOV
- motion for new trial
- Tie the complaint to the specific jury finding you intend to challenge on appeal.
- Make sure the clerk’s record clearly reflects the filing and the grounds asserted.
- If using an oral motion, ensure it is transcribed and sufficiently specific.
Preserving Factual-Sufficiency Complaints
- File a motion for new trial when you intend to challenge factual sufficiency of a jury finding.
- Identify each challenged finding separately, including:
- each predicate ground challenged
- best interest
- any conservatorship finding, if applicable
- State that the evidence is factually insufficient or that the finding is against the great weight and preponderance, as appropriate to the posture.
- File within the applicable deadline and confirm presentment where necessary.
- Do not rely on other post-verdict filings as a substitute for the motion-for-new-trial requirement.
Protecting Termination Appeals Specifically
- After a jury verdict, review every predicate ground found by the jury.
- Challenge all predicate grounds necessary to secure meaningful appellate relief.
- Pay particular attention to subsection (D) and (E) findings because of their collateral consequences.
- If preservation was missed, evaluate whether there is a supportable argument that counsel unjustifiably failed to preserve error under In re J.P.B.
- Include that argument expressly in the appellate briefing if the record and law support it.
Addressing Defects in the Termination Order
- Review the final order immediately for required statutory findings under current Family Code provisions.
- Confirm whether the order contains any separate written findings required by statute.
- If findings are omitted or incomplete, file a prompt motion to modify or correct the judgment.
- Object on the record if the trial court signs a noncompliant order over your objection.
- Preserve both the complaint and the requested remedy in writing.
Appellee Response Checklist
- Lead with preservation in the appellee’s brief where the appellant skipped required motions.
- Identify precisely which preservation step was omitted.
- Cite Rule 33.1 and Rule 324(b)(2), as applicable.
- Argue waiver separately for legal sufficiency and factual sufficiency.
- In multi-ground cases, argue that unchallenged predicate grounds independently support affirmance.
- If the appellant attacks only subsection (N), point out any unchallenged findings under subsections (D), (E), or (O).
Citation
In the Interest of A.W., N.W., N.W., P.W., Children, No. 13-25-00633-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 7, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~c8b482cb-1543-48fb-9a36-f3014a758b00~~
Share this content: