in the Interest of J.R., a Child

Texas Supreme Court

in the Interest of J.R., a Child

505 S.W.3d 620, 59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 586, 2016 WL 1267694, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 239

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedApril 1, 2016

DocketNO. 15-0308

StatusPublished

This text of 505 S.W.3d 620 (in the Interest of J.R., a Child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in the Interest of J.R., a Child, 505 S.W.3d 620, 59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 586, 2016 WL 1267694, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 239 (Tex. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This Court abated this case to consider whether petitioner, a pro se indigent parent in a government-initiated parental rights termination suit, has a statutory right to appointed counsel to pursue a petition for review. Only the child’s father, incarcerated at the time of trial, appealed from the termination of both parents’ rights. Father’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in the court of appeals, asserting that on examination of the record and applicable law, the attorney had concluded that the appeal was frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The court of appeals dismissed the appeal and allowed the attorney to withdraw, directing the attorney to advise father of his right to file a pro se petition for review.

In a hand-written document filed in this Court, father asks for relief, asserting that he “basically never got” the court-appointed attorney that he asked for, and raising issues concerning the ineffectiveness of his appointed attorney and the attorney’s successful effort to withdraw. In light of our opinion in In re P.M., — S.W.3d -, 2016 WL 1274748 (Tex. 2016), we refer this case to the trial court for the appointment of counsel. We direct the trial court to report on the appointment to the Court within thirty days. The case remains abated until further order.

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

ORDER

This Court abated this case to consider whether petitioner, a pro se indigent parent in a government-initiated parental rights termination suit, has a statutory right to appointed counsel to pursue a petition for review. Only the child’s father, incarcerated at the time of trial, appealed from the termination of both parents’ rights. Father’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in the court of appeals, asserting that on examination of the record and applicable law, the attorney had concluded that the appeal was frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The court of appeals dismissed the appeal and allowed the attorney to withdraw, directing the attorney to advise father of his right to file a pro se petition for review.

In a hand-written document filed in this Court, father asks for relief, asserting that he “basically never got” the court-appointed attorney that he asked for, and raising issues concerning the ineffectiveness of his appointed attorney and the attorney’s successful effort to withdraw. In light of our opinion in In re P.M., — S.W.3d -, 2016 WL 1274748 (Tex. 2016), we refer this case to the trial court for the appointment of counsel. We direct the trial court to report on the appointment to the Court within thirty days. The case remains abated until further order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.3d 620, 59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 586, 2016 WL 1267694, 2016 Tex. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-jr-a-child-tex-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack