was improperly taken. Nor does she contend the evidence was legally or factually insufficient to support the termination of her parental rights or that the default judgment was otherwise erroneous. See Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679, 684-85 (Tex.1979) (default judgment erroneous only if (i) petition or other pleading of non-defaulting party seeking affirmative relief does not attempt to state cause of action within court’s jurisdiction, (ii) petition or pleading for affirmative relief does not give defendant fair notice of claim asserted, or (iii) petition affirmatively discloses invalidity of such claim). Because she does not attack the default judgment on any of these grounds, we limit our review of.Rodgers’s four issues to whether the trial judge abused her discretio ex.1988) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, in cases in which a defendant
holding the trial court erred in not charging the jury that a defendant had the burden of proving the affirmative defense of comparative negligence holding that appellant who properly filed an objection in accordance with the notice he received from the trial court had standing to appeal holding in a similar factual situation that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction because it had no actual or constructive possession of the letters of credit involved holding that trial court erred in considering pro se motion for new trial filed when defendant was represented by counsel holding trial court and appellate court erred in requiring defendant to show he had meritorious defense when record established that defendant had filed answer but had no actual or constructive notice of trial setting