Interest of B v. a Child

Court of Appeals of Texas

Interest of B v. a Child

DecidedJanuary 9, 2019

Docket04-18-00857-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Interest of B v. a Child (Interest of B v. a Child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Interest of B v. a Child, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 9, 2019

No. 04-18-00857-CV

INTEREST OF B.V., A CHILD,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016-PA-00239 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant father is appealing a final order terminating his parental rights signed on November 20, 2018. Appellant has filed an affidavit of indigence and a request for appointment of an attorney to represent him on appeal. In a termination suit filed by a governmental entity such as the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, an indigent parent who responds in opposition to the termination has the statutory right to appointment of an attorney ad litem. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.013(a). This right to appointed counsel also extends to an appeal. In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 633 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). However, there is no corresponding right to appointed counsel in a private termination suit such as this case in which an adoption agency sought termination of parental rights. In re J.C., 250 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied); In re C.J., No. 04-14-00663-CV, 2015 WL 1089660, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 11, 2015, no pet.). Accordingly, appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Appellee has filed an “Advisory to the Court Regarding Lack of Notice of Appellant’s Filings” requesting that we strike appellant’s pro se filings because he failed to serve a copy on all parties to the proceeding and failed to include a certificate of service on the documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a), (d), (e). We DENY appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s filings to date, but ORDER appellant to comply with Rule 9.5’s service requirements on any documents he files after the date of this order.

Appellant’s brief is due to be filed in this court on January 16, 2019.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court

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

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 9, 2019

No. 04-18-00857-CV

INTEREST OF B.V., A CHILD,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016-PA-00239 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

ORDER Appellant father is appealing a final order terminating his parental rights signed on November 20, 2018. Appellant has filed an affidavit of indigence and a request for appointment of an attorney to represent him on appeal. In a termination suit filed by a governmental entity such as the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, an indigent parent who responds in opposition to the termination has the statutory right to appointment of an attorney ad litem. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.013(a). This right to appointed counsel also extends to an appeal. In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 633 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.). However, there is no corresponding right to appointed counsel in a private termination suit such as this case in which an adoption agency sought termination of parental rights. In re J.C., 250 S.W.3d 486, 489 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied); In re C.J., No. 04-14-00663-CV, 2015 WL 1089660, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 11, 2015, no pet.). Accordingly, appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Appellee has filed an “Advisory to the Court Regarding Lack of Notice of Appellant’s Filings” requesting that we strike appellant’s pro se filings because he failed to serve a copy on all parties to the proceeding and failed to include a certificate of service on the documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a), (d), (e). We DENY appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s filings to date, but ORDER appellant to comply with Rule 9.5’s service requirements on any documents he files after the date of this order.

Appellant’s brief is due to be filed in this court on January 16, 2019.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE, Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Interest of B v. a Child, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interest-of-b-v-a-child-texapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack