in the Interest of E.A.F., Child
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2115
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- The Department filed to protect and terminate father's rights after his then-1-year-old daughter was found home alone; the child was placed with a paternal aunt and later in foster care.
- Father (E.F.) had a prior parental-termination based on endangering conduct involving another child and convictions for violent conduct.
- An attorney ad litem (Pat Shelton) was appointed; at trial the record shows the father told the court he "released" his counsel and proceeded pro se, but no on-the-record finding of good cause relieving the ad litem appears.
- The trial court signed an interlocutory termination decree as to father and later a final decree; father appealed.
- Trial evidence included prior termination, criminal history and incidents of family violence, limited compliance with reunification services, hostile conduct toward caseworkers/relative caregivers, and that the child was doing well in foster care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (E.F.) | Defendant's Argument (Department/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had to give Faretta warnings before allowing self-representation | Court should have warned E.F. of dangers of waiving counsel under Faretta | Faretta (criminal Sixth Amendment) does not apply; Family Code mandates appointment and continuation of an attorney ad litem absent an on-the-record good-cause release | Rejected — Faretta warnings not required because the ad litem was statutorily required and no timely complaint was preserved |
| Sufficiency of evidence that termination was in child's best interest | Termination is not supported by clear-and-convincing evidence; father urged reversal | Evidence (prior termination, criminal/family-violence history, failure to complete services, instability) supports best-interest finding | Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient to support best interest finding |
| If termination reversed, whether father should be appointed conservator | Father sought appointment as managing or possessory conservator | Department argued that if termination stands Dept. should be managing conservator under statute | Not reached — court affirmed termination, so conservatorship challenge moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self-representation and required warnings)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (no automatic constitutional right to appointed counsel in all parental-rights terminations)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (parental rights implicate fundamental interests but are not absolute)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (termination standard and consideration of child interests)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (clear-and-convincing evidence standard and appellate review in termination cases)
- In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (consideration of parent’s history with other children and relevance to best interest)
- In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 435 (statutory right to counsel in government termination proceedings carries standards from criminal ineffective-assistance precedent)