Site icon Thomas J. Daley

Seventh Court Abates Termination Appeal to Address Counsel’s Withdrawal and Appointment

New Texas Court of Appeals Opinion - Analyzed for Family Law Attorneys

In the Interest of A.C. and N.C., Children, 07-25-00337-CV, March 24, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1, Randall County, Texas

Synopsis

The Seventh Court of Appeals abated a parental-rights termination appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to rule on appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw due to a conflict and to determine whether replacement counsel must be appointed. The court also imposed a hard deadline—March 31, 2026—for filing a supplemental clerk’s record (findings and conclusions) and a reporter’s record, reflecting the accelerated termination-appeal timetable.

Relevance to Family Law

Even though the order arises in a termination appeal, the procedural lesson applies across Texas family-law dockets—particularly SAPCR modifications and high-stakes custody disputes where expedited settings, temporary orders, and constrained appellate windows create the same risk profile: when representation changes midstream, the record must be developed quickly and correctly, or the appeal can stall, compress briefing schedules, and jeopardize client rights. For divorce and custody litigators, the case is a reminder that withdrawal/appointment issues are not mere housekeeping; they are record-driven events that appellate courts will force trial courts to address with findings, a hearing record, and strict deadlines.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

D.C. appealed an order terminating his parent-child relationship with two children, A.C. and N.C. Briefing was already complete in the Seventh Court of Appeals when D.C.’s appellate counsel moved to withdraw, citing new employment that created an “irreconcilable conflict.” The motion presented an immediate problem in a termination appeal: Texas procedure requires careful protection of the parent’s right to counsel in a case with accelerated appellate timetables, and the appellate court could not simply proceed without ensuring the withdrawal was properly ruled on and that the parent would be represented if appointment was required.

The court’s order reflects that the conflict allegation was not resolved on the appellate record as it stood. To avoid proceeding with uncertain representation—and to protect the integrity of an already-briefed termination appeal—the appellate court paused the appeal and sent the case back to the trial court for targeted action, including development of a supplemental record.

Issues Decided

Rules Applied

The Seventh Court’s order is procedural, but it anchors its directive in the accelerated nature of parental termination appeals and the need for an adequate record:

Application

With briefs already on file, the court confronted a practical and ethical inflection point: appellate counsel asserted a new employment-based conflict that purportedly made continued representation untenable. Rather than decide the withdrawal request in a vacuum—or proceed without certainty that the parent’s appellate representation was proper—the Seventh Court abated the appeal and remanded to the County Court at Law No. 1 of Randall County.

Importantly, the court did not merely instruct the trial court to “handle” the motion. It ordered a structured remand: the trial court must rule on the withdrawal request, decide whether new appellate counsel must be appointed, and then issue findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing those matters. The appellate court also required creation of a clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions and a reporter’s record of any evidence and argument presented. Finally, recognizing the statutory/policy imperative for swift resolution of termination appeals, the court imposed an expedited filing deadline—on or before March 31, 2026—to get the supplemental record back to Amarillo.

The order also anticipates downstream appellate administration: if new counsel is appointed, the trial court must include counsel’s identifying and contact information (including State Bar number) in the findings so the appellate court can ensure proper notice, scheduling, and responsibility for the case moving forward.

Holding

The Seventh Court of Appeals abated the appeal and remanded to the trial court to rule on appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and to determine whether replacement appellate counsel should be appointed. This holding reflects the court’s insistence that representation issues in termination appeals be resolved at the trial-court level, with an adequate record and explicit findings rather than informal docket notations or unrecorded understandings.

The court further held—by directive—that the trial court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and ensure a clerk’s and reporter’s record are filed by March 31, 2026, emphasizing that termination appeals operate on a compressed timetable and that record-development on remand must match that pace.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, this order is a strategic reminder: when an appellate representation issue arises (conflict, breakdown in attorney-client relationship, employment change, substitution), the procedural response must be built for speed and for the record—especially in termination matters where the appellate court will enforce accelerated deadlines.

Practical takeaways include:

Checklists

Withdrawal/Conflict Motion (Appellate or Trial-Level Counsel)

Appointment/Substitution (Protecting the Client and the Appellate Clock)

Remand Record Development (Avoiding a Second Abatement)

Citation

In the Interest of A.C. and N.C., Children, No. 07-25-00337-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 24, 2026) (order of abatement and remand) (per curiam).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~2d97fd27-ecfa-459d-9738-41da6e6098eb~~

Share this content:

Exit mobile version