process challenge. Under our Rules of Appellate Procedure, a party must present to the trial court a timely request, motion, or objection, state the specific grounds therefor, and obtain a ruling. Tex.R.App. P. 3B.1. As noted above, allowing appellate review of unpreserved error would undermine the Legislature’s intent that cases terminating parental rights be expeditiously resolved, thus “ ‘[p]romot[ing] the child’s interest in a final decision and thus placement in a safe and stable home.’ ” In re B.L.D. and B.R.D., 118 S.W.3d at 353 (quoting In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 304 (Tex.2002)). Both we and the United States Supreme Court have held that constitutional error was waived in comparable circumstances. See Webb v. Webb, 451 U.S. 493, 496-97, 101 S.Ct. 1889, 68 L.Ed.2d 392 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Tex. Dep’t of Protective and Regulatory
holding that constitutional error was waived even though petitioner repeatedly used the phrase full faith and credit because petitioner did not cite to the federal constitution or to any cases relying on the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution holding that a federal court must enforce a state court judgment under the full faith and credit statute where diversity jurisdiction exists holding that the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to apply another states law in violation of its own legitimate public policy holding this rule does not deny full faith and credit holding that a state court settlement may be given full faith and credit in federal courts even if it concerns an exclusively federal area of law