In re C.L.S.
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9070
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Child born with serious heart ailment; parents are not married and privately dispute custody and support.
- Parents previously settled a separate civil matter with a confidential amount from a drug manufacturer; Father sued Mother for paternity and custody.
- Mother filed a termination of parental rights action against Father; Father was represented in paternity actions by Faye Gordon.
- Trial court scheduled trial for March 8, 2011; on April 4, 2011 Father appeared pro se, with no clear record of counsel’s appearance or waiver.
- During trial, the court did not admonish Father about dangers of self-representation or ensure a record of knowing waiver of counsel; trial proceeded and terminated Father’s parental rights.
- Final judgment terminating parental rights was entered May 26, 2011; Father appealed asserting notice, representation, and waiver issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Faretta warnings apply in parental termination proceedings. | Father argues Faretta warnings are required before self-representation in termination cases. | Mother argues Faretta does not apply; private termination lacks state action and no right to counsel. | Faretta warnings apply; record must show awareness and knowing waiver. |
| Whether the trial court was obligated to admonish and obtain a knowing waiver of the right to counsel. | Father contends no warning or on-record waiver occurred. | Mother contends no strict requirement given private matter and no right to counsel. | Record insufficient to show knowing and intelligent waiver; issue sustained. |
| Whether the absence of counsel and failure to warn invalidates termination. | Father asserts trial proceeded with ineffective assistance and no counsel. | Mother maintains private civil matter with no constitutional right to counsel in private termination. | Issue resolved in Father's favor; judgment reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with Faretta warnings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to counsel and need for warnings when self-representing)
- Williams v. State, 252 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (warns of lack of special consideration for self-representation)
- In re J.M.S., 43 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (effective assistance standard in termination cases applied like criminal cases)
- In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (counsels' effectiveness in termination proceedings evaluated under Strickland)
- In re A.H.L., 214 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2006) (Faretta reasoning applied to termination context in some appellate decisions)
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (importance of parent-child liberty interest in termination cases)