in the Interest of L.D.L.H and C.A.L., Children, 04-15-00146-CV

In 2010, DFPS filed a petition against parents of six children seeking termination if reunification failed; trial court appointed the Department temporary managing conservator and placed children in foster care.
A mediated settlement allowed the Department to be permanent managing conservator and Father to be possessory conservator of L.D.L.H. and C.A.L.; no rights were terminated at that time with grounds reserved for termination.
Father was incarcerated and did not attend subsequent permanency hearings; during this period all children remained in foster care.
The Department filed a Motion for Dismissal as to Child to release it as managing conservator for C.A.L. and L.D.L.H.; the court granted the motion, but the suit was not dismissed.
In 2014, petitions to modify seeking termination were filed; the ad litem and Department later sought to set aside the earlier dismissal order, which the court granted.
A one-day bench trial occurred with Father absent but his counsel present; the court terminated Father’s parental rights and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Father contends no continuance was requested to secure his attendance.	Father’s counsel may have strategic reasons; no prejudice shown.	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown; continuance unlikely to change outcome.
Validity of termination order given alleged nonsuit	Father argues the court nonsuited part of the case by granting the motion to dismiss.	Motion did not dismiss or nonsuit; order released only the Department as managing conservator.	No nonsuit occurred; trial court had jurisdiction to terminate.

Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1995) (void when court lacks jurisdiction or capacity)
In re A.J.F., 313 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (jurisdiction and recitals in termination cases)
In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (ineffective assistance of counsel standard in termination cases)
J.M.O., 459 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015) (Strickland standard applied to parental-rights)
In re W.C.B., 337 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (presumption of prejudice at critical stages)
Ryland Enter., Inc. v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. 2011) (title of motion cannot control substance; substance determines effect)
Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (counsel’s presence at trial; deference to counsel’s strategy)
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (jurisdiction questions reviewed de novo)