T.E.T. v. Madison County Department of Human Resources

Because I do not believe that T.E.T. (“the father”) had proper notice that he had the right to have counsel appointed to represent him if he was indigent, I respectfully dissent from the no-opinion af-firmance in this termination-of-parental-rights case.

In my view, the record does not indicate that the father was properly informed that he had a right to an appointed attorney if he was indigent. First, although the referee’s report stated that the father was told, in a pretrial hearing, that he had a right to counsel, that is different from being informed by the trial judge that he had a right…