164, 166-67 (1948); Page v. Cent. Bank & Trust Co., 548 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1977, no writ); Gulf States Theatres of Tex. v. Hayes, 534 S.W.2d 406, 407 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Go Int’l, Inc. v. Big-Tex Crude Oil Co., 531 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Civ.App.-Eastland 1975, no writ); Ives v. Watson, 521 S.W.2d 930, 934 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 69 . From 1941 until 1988, Rule 279 provided that orth 2002, no pet. h.) (same); In re I.V., 61 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (same); In re J.M.S., 43 S.W.3d 60, 62 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (same); In re C.E.M., 64 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (same); In re A.P., 42 S.W.3d 248, 256 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); In re A.V., 57 S.W.3d 51, 56 (Tex.App.-Waco
holding in termination of parental rights case that trial court erred in taking judicial notice of evidence before him in guardianship hearing in same case holding that a factual sufficiency complaint in a parental termination case may be reviewed even though it was not preserved in the trial court holding that a sufficiency challenge must be preserved in the trial court in a parental termination case to be reviewed on appeal holding that factual sufficiency claim need not be preserved pursuant to texas rule of appellate procedure 331 holding in a termination of parental rights case that as a question of law the trial courts ruling that the facts of this case sufficiently support the termination ground of willful abandonment are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness