in the Interest of A.F. and C.F., Children, 05-17-00392-CV

Department filed suit (Feb 16, 2017) seeking protection, conservatorship, and termination of Father’s parental rights under family code §§ 161.001(b)(1)(D)–(E) and § 161.003. Mother is deceased.
Trial court found Father indigent (Feb 17) and appointed counsel with an order expressly directing counsel to contact Father and file responsive pleadings within 72 hours.
At the March 2 hearing counsel reported limited phone contact with Father; the court stated it would “release” counsel and said counsel would be reappointed if Father appeared. The written March 2 order nevertheless appointed counsel as attorney ad litem under § 161.003(b).
Counsel did not file responsive pleadings or otherwise represent Father after March 2; Father did not appear at later hearings.
On April 12 the court conducted a prove-up hearing in Father’s absence, found Father in default, terminated his parental rights, and appointed the Department permanent managing conservator.
On appeal Father contended he was denied effective assistance of counsel; the Court of Appeals reversed the termination portion of the order and remanded for a new trial respecting termination, but affirmed the appointment of the Department as permanent managing conservator (Father did not challenge that appointment on appeal).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
Whether Father was denied effective assistance of counsel because appointed counsel failed to file responsive pleadings and was released before critical stages, leading to a default termination	Counsel was ordered to file an answer within 72 hours but failed; this noncompliance deprived Father of continued representation and led to default termination—amounts to ineffective assistance and constructive denial of counsel at a critical stage	Record is silent on counsel’s reasons; communication problems with Father made filing premature and strategic; strong presumption of effective assistance should apply; no showing of deficient performance	Court found counsel’s failure to comply with the court’s order and subsequent absence fallen below objective standards; because Father was without representation at critical stages, prejudice is presumed under Cronic; reversed termination and remanded for new trial on termination only

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (recognizes circumstances where denial of counsel or failure to test the prosecution leads to presumed prejudice)
In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (applies Strickland in parental‑rights termination context)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (reviews indigent parent’s right to counsel in termination proceedings)
In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (courts must ensure withdrawal of counsel will not cause foreseeable prejudice)
In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (challenge to conservatorship appointment is separate from challenge to termination)