In Re Jlj, 352 S.W.3d 536

Department filed petition for protection, conservatorship, and termination against Appellant and Jane on December 2, 2008, and temporary managing conservatorship was awarded to the Department after an emergency removal.
Grounds alleged for termination included endangering the child’s physical and emotional well-being, endangering safety, criminal conduct related to harming a child, and constructive abandonment.
Jane executed a voluntary relinquishment affidavit in September 2009, but no final termination judgment against her occurred before the December 2009 hearing.
Appellant was incarcerated during critical periods (Dec 2008–Mar 2009; June 2009) and remained in custody at the final termination hearing in December 2009.
At the final termination hearing, Jane testified despite Appellant’s objection that she was not a party, and the trial court overruled the objection.
Final judgment terminating parental rights as to both Appellant and Jane was entered on December 10, 2009; Appellant appealed filing a notice December 16, 2009.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sufficiency of the evidence was properly preserved for appeal	Appellant: insufficiency claim preserved via statement of points.	Department: insufficiency not properly preserved; failure to specify preserved issue.	Issue not preserved; frivolousness review limited to other issue.
Whether allowing Jane to testify as a party at the final hearing violated due process	Appellant: Jane was no longer a party after relinquishment and could not testify as a party witness.	Jane remained a party prior to relinquishment; affidavit did not terminate party status; testimony permissible.	No due process violation; Jane remained a party, and the testimony was proper; issue frivolous.

In re M.N., 262 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. 2008) (statutory extension and procedural flexibility in §263.405)
In re R.J.S., 219 S.W.3d 623 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007) (preservation and sufficiency review under §263.405)
In re J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 436 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (sufficiency issues not properly preserved when generalized)
Lumpkin v. Dept. of Family & Protective Servs., 260 S.W.3d 524 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (frivolousness review limited on appeal)
Vallejo v. Tex. Dept. of Family & Protective Servs., 280 S.W.3d 917 (Tex.App.-Austin 2009) (affidavits do not automatically terminate party status; court retains authority)
Adams v. Tex. Dept. of Family & Protective Servs., 236 S.W.3d 271 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (purpose of statement of points to identify errors for trial court)