Background
C.N. (Mother) and R.L. (Father) appealed orders entered in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship brought by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. The appeal concerns K.N. and three children identified as K.L.
Father’s appellate counsel moved to withdraw, representing that Father wished to proceed without counsel. Mother’s and Father’s supplemental briefs were due on October 22, 2026, and Father also had a pending motion to extend his supplemental-brief deadline.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals abated the appeal, paused all briefing deadlines, and remanded the case to the trial court. It directed the trial court to decide whether good cause supported counsel’s withdrawal, whether Father still wanted to pursue the appeal, whether he remained indigent, whether any choice to proceed pro se was competent and intelligent, and whether new counsel should be appointed.
The court required findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with a clerk’s record and any reporter’s record from the remand hearing, by October 29, 2026. If new appellate counsel is appointed, the trial court must include that lawyer’s contact and bar information in its findings. The court dismissed Father’s extension motion as moot.
Key Takeaways
- An indigent parent’s request to represent himself on appeal in a parental-termination case requires an inquiry into whether the waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent.
- The trial court must determine whether counsel may withdraw and whether replacement appellate counsel is required.
- The appeal and briefing deadlines remain paused pending the remand proceedings.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the procedural safeguards surrounding appellate representation in parental-termination matters. A parent’s desire to proceed without counsel does not itself resolve whether counsel may withdraw or whether the parent has validly waived the right to appointed representation.