in the Interest of D.L.F. and A.L.F., Children

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 12, 2008
• Docket: 10-08-00036-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-08-00036-CV

In the Interest of D.L.F. and A.L.F., Children

From the County Court at Law

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 45019

ABATEMENT ORDER

            The parental rights of Larry Fulton as to DLF and ALF were terminated on January 17, 2008.  Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and requested new counsel to be appointed for Fulton.^[1]  We were provided notice that on February 12, 2008, the trial court permitted counsel to withdraw. 

            In the order granting the withdrawal, the court found that Fulton was indigent and entitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal.  However, the paragraph in the order providing for the appointment of new counsel was not filled in and was crossed out.

            Indigent persons have a statutory right to counsel in parental-rights termination cases.  Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.013(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2007).  Because the trial court found Fulton to be indigent, counsel must be appointed for Fulton.

            This appeal is abated for the trial court to appoint counsel to represent Fulton on appeal within 14 days from the date of this order.  A supplemental clerk’s record containing the appointment order shall be filed with this Court within 21 days from the date of this order.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Vance, and

            Justice Reyna

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed March 12, 2008

---

[1] Counsel filed a notice of appeal, statement of points, motion for new trial, and motion to withdraw all on the same day.

span>

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Reyna

            (Chief Justice Gray concurs with a note)*

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 5, 2007

Publish

[CR25]

*(“Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment with the following note.  This is a civil garnishment proceeding.  Pure and simple.  It was brought to recover court costs and fees from a criminal defendant’s trust account, funds being held by the State.  It would be the same if any third party was trying to garnish the appellant’s funds, for example, to satisfy a money judgment from a civil proceeding.  But I’ve been down this road before.  See In re Keeling, 227 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding) and Crawford v. State, 226 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.).  I did not get the second vote I needed for a majority.  I acknowledge the binding precedent on the issue.  But this means the Court has been down this road before too.  Thus, there is no basis to designate for publication as an opinion, a per curiam opinion, what should be an unpublished memorandum opinion.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), (b), and 47.4.”)