In the Interest of C.C. and I.C., Children

No. 07-15-00185-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 13, 2015) · Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District at Amarillo · May 13, 2015 · No. No. 07-15-00185-CV

Summary

The Seventh District Court of Appeals of Texas abated and remanded an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights. The court directed the trial court to determine whether the appellant wished to pursue the appeal, remained indigent, required appointed counsel, and why the reporter’s record was overdue.

Holdings

  1. A parent whose parental rights have been terminated must have a meaningful right of appeal, and appointed counsel's duty in a termination proceeding continues after trial until the judgment becomes final or counsel is expressly discharged by the trial court.
  2. When an appellant in an accelerated parental-rights-termination appeal is apparently unrepresented by appointed counsel and the reporter's record is past due, the appellate court may abate the appeal and remand to the trial court to determine the appellant's wishes, indigency, entitlement to counsel, counsel's possible abandonment, and the reason for the missing reporter's record.
  3. The court accepted Appellant's reasonable explanation for filing the notice of appeal after the accelerated-appeal deadline and determined that jurisdiction over the appeal existed.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appeal should be abated and remanded when an indigent parent in a parental-rights-termination case is apparently unrepresented by appointed appellate counsel and the reporter's record is overdue.
  2. Whether the trial court must determine the parent's desire to pursue the appeal, continued indigency, entitlement to appointed counsel, possible abandonment by existing counsel, and the reason the reporter's record was not filed.

Disposition

remanded

Cases Cited (6)

  • Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998)(followed)
  • Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997)(followed)
  • Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758–59 (1982)(followed)
  • Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985)(followed)
  • In re S.K.A., 236 S.W.3d 875, 890 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, pet. denied)(followed)
  • In the Interest of J.O.A., 262 S.W.3d 7, 18 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008), modified, 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Texas Court Of Appeals Of Texas Seventh District At Amarillo