*1 OPINION T.R.F., Interest of a Child. GRAY, TOM Chief Justice. Nos. (mother) and parental rights of T.F. The (father) to their were terminated as H.R.F. Appeals

Court child, H.R.F. filed T.R.F. Both T.F. and Waco. appeal. Because separate notices points a statement did not file June Code, the Family by the is affirmed. trial court’s Reg- Department The of Protective petition filed a for termi- ulatory Services parental rights of T.F. and nation of the child, Janu- to their T.R.F. On H.R.F. as ary jury determined that par- relationship between parent-child child should be ents the final order of signed trial court The February 2007. Within termination on verdict, days jury’s and over 30 days of the order, the final prior to the rendition of court different Both counsel for and H.R.F. separate notices of filed requires Code termination or- pellant of a state-initiated with the trial no later der to file signed, final days than 15 after the order appel- on which appeal. Tex. Fam.Code lant intends to 268.405(b) (Vernon Supp.2006). § Ann. eourt[,] We, may not “appellate as the specifically was not any issue that presented to the trial ” points.... Peterson, Christopher W. Peterson & E.A.R., 263.405(i); LLC, Station, Brad K. Swearingen College Cune, Bryan, for Appellant/Relator. When the clerk’s record was Stutt, County & Dist. Linda F. Asst. there was no state- noticed that appeal, we (Texas

Atty. County Dept of for Robertson within T.F. contained ment Services), Franklin, record. the clerk’s for Appellee/Respondent. of this Court the Clerk Franklin, Lowry, Ad Litem. G. letter of the absence Jami notified T.F. her that and warned GRAY, the trial court’s affirm Before Chief Justice unless, days of the date within as to her REYNA. and Justice *2 letter, the response a was showing Appellant unable to a statutorily is meet grounds for this Court to that applies deadline to no oth- issue that was not raised in a er cases other than CPS terminations. 2007, Then, 21, on points. May inability On based that the we received meet deadline, proffering appeal despite notice that T.F. was is to the trial dismissed court a the fact that the trial present- court was ed with multiple every times each and May 29, 2007, we received T.F.’s appellate timely- issue addressed in her response to In the Clerk’s letter. the Quite appeal frankly, brief. such a response, T.F. states several factual rea- significant result would raise concern why sons not should “dismiss” her Appellant’s procedural that due peal filing for the late of the statement of rights would be violated and also raises 1) points: counsel was not at the the about whether in 2) trial; appellate record was not re- Appellant’s position receiving equal ceived until after for the deadline protection. 3) of points had response prior appellate court de repeated phone counsel did not return Legislature’s cisions which frustrated the appellate calls advance the various goal speed up post-judgment pro 4) deadlines; counsel was in parental cases, cess copied on any party’s other post-judg- Legislature enacted section ment motions. T.F. contends she should 263.405(i), effective appeals filed after penalized not be when the “factual circum- September 2005. See In the Interest practically impossible stances make it 2 (Tex.App. 815 n. meet requirements” the technical (Vance, J., -Waco concur Code. ring); of R.C., see also argues that her also two issues on 07-06-0444-CV, appeal surprise are not a to the trial court they subject because were the of a written (Tex.App.-Amarillo April subject motion in the trial appeals, including Several courts of a motions, subject oral and the of H.R.F.’s Court, majority of this questioned have adds, of points. “To She re- practical application and constitutional va a quire of Points Appeal Statement lidity of this statute. See In the Interest about issues that were raised written and oral motion and on which the trial decide, multiple opportunities had *2 (Tex.App. n. simply absurd.” h.); -Eastland no pet. In re argues further R.M.R., (Tex.App.-Corpus 218 S.W.3d 863 Christi, h.); Appellant’s constitutionally-protected In the Interest of parental relationship n. Then, circumstances, App.-Waco, a series of Pool v. Tex. Services, including change delays in Dep’t. receiving court transcripts etc—none of 227 212 (Tex.App.-Houston which are Appellant’s under control— no pet.); earlier, 1. As appeal noted Clerk warned T.F. that that her would be dismissed. her, would be affirmed as to 263.405(i) ly filed. Tex. (Tex.App.-Fort Fam.Code Ann. 5.W.3d (Vernon Supp.2006). But be other there direct even avenues besides Therefore, are dismissed T.F.’s issues protect conjunction with direct as to T.F. is court’s and the trial *3 expressed concerns the due In the Interest affirmed. See of Interest these courts. See of (Tex.App.-Waco 814 201 S.W.3d C.J., (Gray, at 222 663 S.W.3d severed from T.F.’s no (discussing of Tex concurring) application number 10-07-00086-CV appellate case 161.211(a)); In the Family Code section number 10- assigned appellate case and to R.C., 07-06-0444-CV; 2007 Interest of 07-00200-CV. *4, 2007 WL LEXIS Tex.App. — 1219046, *1, at in Cause No. concurring Vance S.W.3d pet. April no -, - (Tex.App.-Amarillo (recognizing that a has no recourse party statutory writ of habeas but

through Justice, concurring. BILL opinion no as to whether a expressing writ of this corpus disposition common law writ of habeas I concur in the Court’s relief). However, provide question I of error coram nobis would continue 263.405®, enactment, applied every appellate And its subsection since whether indigent an upon involving court called this termination cases address counsel language parent appointed appellate has that the clear whose agreed counsel, is prohibits considering statute us from is not same as it can presented in a muster because passes sues not state constitutional operate deprive appellate review ment of See In R.C., accelerated timetable.1 Tex.App. at issues under its —*1, E.AR., at at 201 S.W.3d 816-18 WL S.W.3d See J., (Vance, -; no (Tex.App.-Waco In the Interest see also concurring). — 2007 WL untimely state- in her T.F.’s two issues (Tex.App.-Eastland (1) are: the trial court failing dismiss abused its discretion date case when dismissal requirements Whether or of sec (2) absurd,” its discretion can and the trial court abused “simply tion 263.405 are we extending date when exception out an to the statute dismissal carve finding supporting from existed legislating for T.F. To do so be evidence would T.F., R.C., extraordinary circumstances. bench. *3, appointed appellate LEXIS 3208 at *1, at -. asserts that her statement at Under did statute, untimely because trial counsel can express terms of the in advance repeated phone calls be not return not consider T.F.’s issues deadlines. of the various was untime cause her statement scrutinized, strictly the invol parental-rights should be 1. I have also remarked "death-penalty" strictly cases are the con untary termination statutes K.G.M., civil law. In re (citing parent. Hol favor of the strued in J., (Vance, 1985)). Smith, (Tex. ick v. concurring). proceedings these cases This circumstance raises at least Mary Lou WILCOX and

possibility Michael ineffective-assistance-of- Roscom, Appellants, L. relating counsel claim the untimely and at least one court v. has held that an ineffective-assistance-of- MARRIOTT, John T. Rebecca A. Mar counsel claim need not be in a statement of riott, Guy Williams, Sheriff, points.2 Doe v. Brazoria County Child Montgomery County, Texas, Appel lees. App.-Houston Dist.], No. 09-05-469 CV. J.F.R., but see In re *2 (Tex.App.Beaumont Mar.8, 2007, *4 Court of Appeals of h.) (mem.op.) (appellant must inef Beaumont. fective-assistance claim in statement of Submitted March 2007. separate either in a instrument or trial); J.H., of motion for new July Decided 2007. *1 (Tex.App.Tyler, Jan.24, 2007, (same); (mem.op.) A.H.L., III,

re Paso, denied)

App.El Oct.

(same); 230-

31 (Tex.App.Fort

(same).

Recognizing that our courts of appeals following interpretation strict

statute, I reluctantly concur. Pool v. Cf. & Dep’t Fam. (Tex.App.-Houston [1st (impliedly recogniz

ing existence of ineffective-assistance claim

for trial counsel’s failure to file points). Logically, ineffective-assistance claim could not be ain state- based on the untimeliness of the statement of