Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 07-25-00412-CV, February 06, 2026.
On appeal from the 108th District Court, Potter County
Synopsis
The Amarillo Court of Appeals abated a parental termination appeal and remanded the cause for a mandatory evidentiary hearing to evaluate whether an indigent parent’s request to waive appointed counsel and proceed pro se was made knowingly, intelligently, and competently. The court held that a trial court must make specific findings regarding the parent’s awareness of the “dangers and disadvantages” of self-representation before an appellate court will permit the discharge of appointed counsel in the context of an accelerated appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
While this holding arises from a state-initiated termination case, its implications resonate across all high-stakes Texas family law litigation involving the right to counsel. For practitioners, this case underscores that the transition to pro se representation—particularly in the appellate phase—is not a mere administrative formality. It requires a rigorous, record-supported inquiry akin to a Faretta hearing in criminal law. This decision signals to litigators that any attempt by a client to discharge counsel during an accelerated appeal will likely trigger an abatement, potentially delaying finality unless the trial court record already contains the necessary findings of competence and informed waiver.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The litigation involves an appeal by K.C. from a trial court order terminating her parental rights to her child, T.C.-J., following a suit filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. As is standard in indigent termination cases, K.C. was represented by appointed counsel. However, while the appeal was pending and shortly before the appellant’s brief was due, K.C.’s counsel filed a “Motion for Hearing on [K.C.’s] Desire to Proceed Pro Se on Appeal.” The motion informed the Seventh Court of Appeals that K.C. no longer wished to be represented by counsel and intended to represent herself. The appellate record, however, lacked any evidence or findings regarding K.C.’s capacity to make this decision or her understanding of the legal consequences of proceeding without an attorney.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether an appellate court can permit an indigent parent to proceed pro se in a termination appeal without first requiring the trial court to conduct an inquiry into whether the parent’s waiver of counsel is knowing, intelligent, and competent.
Rules Applied
The court relied on Texas Family Code § 109.002(d) and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8(b) for privacy protocols, but the substantive legal framework was drawn from In re M.H., 668 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2023, no pet.). This precedent establishes that because parental termination is a “quasi-criminal” proceeding in terms of the magnitude of the rights involved, a parent’s waiver of the right to counsel must be knowing and intelligent. Additionally, the court acted under the mandate of Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 6.2(a), which requires the expedited disposition of termination appeals, necessitating a swift remand and return of the record.
Application
The court reasoned that the statutory right to counsel in termination cases would be hollow if a parent could waive that right without understanding the inherent risks. In a narrative typical of Texas appellate courts protecting due process, the Seventh Court determined that it could not adjudicate the appeal on its merits while the question of representation remained in limbo. The court applied the “dangers and disadvantages” standard, noting that the trial court is the proper forum for the factual determination of whether an appellant is making a “competent” choice. The court specifically instructed the trial court to investigate four factors: the parent’s continued desire to appeal, her indigency status, the intelligence of her waiver, and whether the circumstances warranted the appointment of substitute counsel rather than pro se status.
Holding
The Amarillo Court of Appeals abated the appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court with instructions to rule on the motion to withdraw and conduct the necessary evidentiary inquiry.
The court further held that the trial court must issue specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the parent’s competence and awareness of the risks of self-representation. These findings, along with a reporter’s record of the hearing, were ordered to be filed as a supplemental record in the appellate court within a strictly truncated timeframe to maintain the accelerated pace of the appeal.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this case serves as a strategic roadmap for handling clients who express a desire to go pro se after an adverse judgment. To avoid the delay of an abatement, trial counsel should proactively request a hearing and the entry of “knowing and intelligent” findings before the trial court loses plenary power, or immediately upon the filing of the notice of appeal. Practitioners must also be aware that the appellate court will not simply take a client’s word at face value; a “competency” record must be developed to insulate the appellate process from future claims of procedural error.
Checklists
Validating a Pro Se Waiver
- Determine Indigency: Re-evaluate whether the client currently meets the criteria for indigent status under the Texas Family Code.
- Document the Intent: Obtain a written statement from the client clearly expressing the desire to waive counsel.
- Request an Evidentiary Hearing: Ensure the trial court conducts a hearing on the record specifically addressing the waiver.
- Address the “Dangers and Disadvantages”: The record should reflect that the court warned the client about the complexities of appellate procedure, including the rules of briefing and the finality of the process.
- Secure Specific Findings: Ensure the trial court signs an order with findings of fact regarding the client’s competence and the voluntariness of the waiver.
Managing Accelerated Appeal Timelines
- Monitor Briefing Deadlines: In termination cases, the 20-day clock for the appellant’s brief does not stop unless an abatement order is issued.
- Expedite the Supplemental Record: Coordinate with the court reporter immediately following the remand hearing to ensure the transcript is filed within the appellate court’s accelerated window.
- Appoint Standby Counsel: If the court determines the parent is competent but high-risk, consider requesting the appointment of standby counsel to assist with technical procedural compliance.
Citation
In the Interest of T.C.-J., a Child, No. 07-25-00412-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 6, 2026, no pet.) (per curiam) (order).
Full Opinion
~~6b0d3cbb-6a7f-4898-8f3f-161cd4313f76~~
Share this content: