to the Court to deny that his Father’s Affidavit of Relinquishment of Parental Rights was signed voluntarily.” See Vela v. Marywood, 17 S.W.3d 750, 760 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. denied, 53 S.W.3d 684 (Tex.2001) (noting that at common law “the word ‘fraud’ refers to an ... omission, or concealment in breach of a legal duty ... when the breach causes injury to another or the taking of an undue and unconscien-tious advantage”)). Dueñas, who was represented by counsel, sought no finding and raised no legal argument before the trial court about a constitutional claim. Given that Dueñas was afforded an extensive evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of his affidavit, it was not apparent from the context that Dueñas was attempting to raise a v. Sherry, 46 S.W.3d 857, 860-61 (Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that the due process
holding that alleged biological father who sought to establish paternity waived constitutional error though it was undisputed that father had received no notice or hearing on prior paternity adjudication that created bar holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity holding that adjudication of paternity in divorce decree is not binding on the child holding that a child born to an intact marriage cannot be the subject of a paternity proceeding brought by a biological father and determining it was fundamental error for the trial court to grant relief pursuant to a nonexistent cause of action recognizing dual paternity where biological father has actual relationship with child or has been prevented from forming relationship by mother and acts to establish paternity within a reasonable time of childs birth he may use compulsory blood test in avowal action