In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-02-323 CV
____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.M., A MINOR
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F-180,973
Larry Mitchell, the father of J.C.M., a minor, brings this appeal in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. The sole issue raised in the appeal contends Mitchell was denied due process and access to the courts because the trial court failed to act upon the appellant's motion to be bench warranted out of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for the hearing. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services concedes error. We reverse and remand.
Approximately one year before the hearing, Mitchell filed a pro se answer, requested appointment of an attorney ad litem, and moved for the issuance of a bench warrant so that he could provide testimony in his own behalf at trial. Mistakenly believing that the appellant failed to enter an appearance in the case, the trial court declared default and heard testimony that Mitchell would not be released from prison before J.C.M. attained majority. The trial court appointed the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services as the permanent managing conservator of fifteen-year-old J.C.M. and denied Mitchell possession or access to the child.
"A prisoner has a constitutional right of access to the courts and may not be denied access merely because he is an inmate." In re I.V., 61 S.W.3d 789, 796 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.), disapproved on other grounds by In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 267 (Tex.2002). The right to personally appear in civil litigation is not unlimited; the trial court may, in its discretion, allow an inmate to proceed by affidavit, deposition, telephone or other effective means. Byrd v. Attorney General, 877 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex. App.- Beaumont 1994, no writ). The trial court made no accommodation by which Mitchell could participate in the proceeding, as requested in the motion for issuance of a bench warrant. "Failure to act on this motion constitutes an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court and requires reversal of the decision made by the trial court." Id.
We hold that the appellant was effectively denied any appearance before the trial court because the trial court did not consider and rule on the motion for issuance of a bench warrant or make other provisions for Mitchell, appellant, to cross-examine the Department's witnesses and present evidence in a proceeding where his testimony was material to a disputed issue of material fact. We sustain issue one. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted September 2, 2003
Opinion Delivered September 11, 2003
Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.
1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.