in the Best Interest and Protection of E.P.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 7, 2020·No. 05-20-00377-CV·Published

Opinion

Order entered April 7, 2020

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00377-CV

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF E.P., Appellant

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MI-20-00463

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s pro se motion for re-examination of the

process and pivotal documents. Because appellant is represented by counsel and is

not entitled to hybrid representation, we DENY the motion. See Smith v. Smith, 22

S.W.3d 140, 151, 153 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (civil

litigant not entitled to hybrid representation); see also In re Black, 04-18-00700-

CV, 2018 WL 6331052, *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 5, 2018, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (same - proceeding for civil commitment of sexually

violent predator).

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in the Best Interest and Protection of E.P., (Tex. Ct. App. 2020).

in the Best Interest and Protection of E.P. (in the Best Interest and Protection of E.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Smith
22 S.W.3d 140 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)