is insufficient to establish that he was F.M.’s parent. As the Department notes in its brief, F.M., Jr. did not rais notice of this pleading which contains a judicial admission that F.M., Jr. is F.M.’s father, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support, the existence of a parent-child relationship between F.M., Jr. and F.M. Accordingly, the trial court’s order terminating that parent-child relationship is also supported by sufficient evidence. Conclusion The trial court’s order is affirmed. 1 . We also note that F.M., Jr. testified at trial that F.M. is his son and he did not believe it was in F.M.’s best interest for his parental rights be terminated. See In re U.B., No. 04-12-00687-CV, 2013 WL 441890, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 6, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); see also Burns v. Burns, 434 S.W.3d 223; 228
holding plaintiffs waived their right to appellate review of the admission of an experts testimony by failing to object to it at trial holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive holding fathers pleadings representing himself to be the father of the children constituted a judicial admission holding fathers testimony at trial constituted an admission of paternity