in the Interest of K.V.K., a Child, 05-14-01384-CV

Suit for parentage filed Oct 2012 shortly before child K.V.K.’s birth; parents no longer dating.
July 8, 2013 temporary orders: Mother named temporary sole managing conservator; Father given supervised visitation and ordered to pay $970/month child support starting July 15, 2013.
Father failed to pay under temporary order; later improved sobriety and the parties reached agreements on conservatorship, possession, and support.
At final trial (July 28, 2014) evidence showed Father’s total arrears of $10,571.74, some goods and payments were provided by Father and his parents (clothing, $4,000 house repairs, $500 gift card, $500 clothes/toys).
Final judgment awarded Mother $6,632 in child-support arrears, reflecting credits the court allowed for some of those goods/payments.
Post-judgment, on Sept 4, 2014 the former guardian ad litem Tim Gonzalez sought reappointment; Oct 2014 the trial court ordered reappointment and required each parent to deposit funds toward his fees.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
1. Credits to Father’s unpaid child support for parents’ payments and gifts	Trial court erred in crediting repairs, clothes, and gift card against Father’s arrears	Court adopted parties’ agreement and evidence showing credits; Father (and his parents) provided value that should be credited	Not preserved for appeal; no objection at trial and not raised in timely new-trial motion — presents nothing to review
2. Calculation of "unpaid child support" amount in final judgment	Amount incorrectly calculated due to improper credits	Final judgment reflected agreed calculation and accepted evidence	Not preserved for appeal — same preservation failure
3. Reappointment of guardian ad litem and fee allocation (Oct 2014 order)	Trial court erred in reappointing ad litem and ordering Mother to pay half fees	Reappointment necessary to protect child during post-judgment enforcement litigation	Issue not before appellate court: Oct 2014 order was interlocutory and not appealable or subsumed by final judgment
4. Order requiring deposit and reservation for additional fees	Order improperly compelled deposits and prospective fees against Mother	Trial court retained authority to require deposits and additional fees before trial	Not reviewable on this appeal because order is interlocutory and not subsumed within the final judgment

Jack B. Anglin Co. Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1992) (appeals lie only from final judgments or authorized interlocutory orders)
Gunnerman v. Basic Capital Mgmt., Inc., 106 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied) (appeal from final judgment brings forward earlier orders merged into final judgment)
State Fair of Tex. v. Iron Mountain Info. Mgmt., Inc., 299 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (examples of interlocutory appeal rules and limits)
Moritz v. Preiss, 121 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. 2003) (untimely new-trial filings are a nullity for preserving appellate issues)
Kenseth v. Dallas Cty., 126 S.W.3d 584 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied) (death of a party during appeal does not necessarily render appeal moot when property rights remain)
Casillas v. Cano, 79 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, order) (representation of deceased party on appeal per Tex. R. Civ. P. 152)