Legal Opinion
In the Interest of E.R.W.
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided September 5, 2017No. 14-17-00178-CVPublishedCited by 96 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice
In this appeal we address an issue of first impression in Texas: whether the current version of Family Code section 107.013—“Mandatory Appointment of Attorney Ad Litem for Parent”—provides a non-indigent parent with a statutory right to representation by counsel in a suit by the government for termination of parental rights. Concluding that it does, we next consider whether a parent may challenge the trial court’s termination of parental rights based on ineffective assistance of the parent’s retained counsel. We conclude that a parent may assert such a…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- In the interest of C.H.Texas Supreme Court · 2002
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by96 opinions
- in the Interest of O. E. R. and L. F. J., Children, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2019
- in the Interest of M. L. L., a Child, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2019
- in the Interest of I. D. G. v. A. G., E. R. G. and R. J. G., Children, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2019
- A. P. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2023
- D. G. and D. R., III v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2017
91 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.