In the Interest of N.V., a Child

Summary

The Texas Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of N.V.'s father. The court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction but abused its discretion by allowing appointed counsel to withdraw without appointing replacement counsel for the indigent father. The court reversed the termination order as to the father and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The trial court retained jurisdiction because it entered timely orders extending the dismissal date and retaining the suit on its docket pursuant to section 263.401 and the Texas Supreme Court's COVID-19 emergency orders.
2. An indigent parent has a statutory right to appointed counsel in a Department-initiated parental-rights termination case, and when appointed counsel is permitted to withdraw, the trial court must provide for appointment of new counsel. The trial court abused its discretion by allowing the father's attorneys to withdraw without appointing replacement counsel.
3. The court did not need to address the father's third through sixth issues because reversal based on the denial of appointed counsel required a new termination proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction because the statutory automatic dismissal date passed without a valid order retaining the termination suit on the docket.
2. Whether the trial court violated the indigent father's statutory right to appointed counsel by allowing his appointed attorneys to withdraw without appointing replacement counsel before the termination trial.
3. Whether the remaining appellate issues required consideration after reversal based on the denial of appointed counsel.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded