Filed in The District Court
of Travis County, Texas
DARLENEBYRNE
Judge
(512)8:4-9313
APR 19 2016 <0 APRIL MORTON
Judicial Aide
M. (512)854-5%5
KATY gallagher-parker Velva L. Price, District(Jlerk
(He
Staff Altorney
(512)854-4915 KELLY DAVIS
126TH DISTRICT COURT Court Clerk
(512)854-5853
RENE SALINAS TRAVIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE
Official Cuirt Reporter P. O. BOX 1748
(512)854-9870 MEANETTE SALGADO
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767
Official Court Reporter
FAX: (512)854-9780 (512) 854-7848
April 19,2016
To:
The Supn.-ne Court of Texas Robert Galvin
PO Box i2 248
812 San Antonio Street, Suite 304
Austin, Tc\as7871 1
Austin, Texas 78701
(Via Regi.htr U.S. Mail)
(Via Electronic Mail to: robUiigalvinlaw.com)
Cc: ( F (via Electronic Mail to )
Scott Taliaferro (via Electronc Mail to: ScotLliiiafcrt
Re: C'..V. /:, Petitioner, v. Texas Department ofFamily and Protective Services,
lexas Supreme Court Cause No. 15-0546
Texas Court ofAppeals. Third District Cause No. 03-14-00597-CV
345'' Judicial District Court of Travis County (Cause No. D-l-FM-13-002917)
To the Supreme Court of Texas and Mr. Robert Galvin:
In respor-.i .: to the Supreme Court's Order dated April 1, 2016 (attached), please find acopy of:
( The trial court's "Order Granting Motion for Withdrawal of Trial Counsel and for Appointment
ot Appellate Counsel", which named Mr. Robert Galvin as Counsel for Ms F
in this case, effective September 15, 2014 for the purposes of handling any appe
matters on behalf of Ms. C F in connection with the lawsuit referenced above;
The trial court's "Order Amending Appointment of Attorney".
The 126'
instructs M
District Court has copied Mr. Robert Galvin with this letter and attached Order. The Court now
Texas Fain vCodTs
ly Code loto',Vm, fhe should
§107.016(2 ^ fis.aPP°!?tmfnt
immediately on ^half
tender to ofCourt
this Ms. Ca eFrS eme
was Court
fulfilledof Texas
under
a written •(;
itement explaining his pos.tion regarding the status ofhis appointm
Please conflict our office ifyou have any questions.
Respectfully,
Darlene Byrne
Judge, 126th District Travis County, Texas
Filed in The District Court
of Travis County, Texas
APR 192016 ^
CAUSE NO. D-l-FM-13-002917 Ulva LPrfe!m^ict^'
Velva L. Price, District (
IN THE INTEREST OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURTS
§
§ OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§
§
A CHILD §
345™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
ORDER AMENDING APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY
The Court, sua sponte, reviewed the "Order Granting Motion for Withdrawal of
Trial Counsel and for Appointment of Appellate Counsel", which named Mr. Robert
Galvin as Counsel for Ms. C F in this case, effective September 15, 2014 for
the purposes of handling the appellate matters on behalf of Ms. C F in
connection with this lawsuit. The Court also took judicial notice of the file and reviewed
the Supreme Court Order dated April 1, 2016. The Court now finds that there is no court
order in the file dismissing Mr. Robert Galvin as counsel for Ms. C F in this
case. The Court finds, however, that in a letter dated July 24, 2015 the Court mistakenly
informed Ms. F that "Court records indicate all attorneys previously appointed to
represent you through your appeal have been properly dismissed after the exhaustion and
conclusion of all related matters." The Court finds that, while Mr. Galvin's appointment
on behalf of Ms. F may have actually expired under Texas Family Code §107.016(2),
the termination of that attorney-client relationship does not appear to have been reflected
in the Clerk's record prior to July 24, 2015 or any time since that date.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court
now amends the "Order Granting Motion for Withdrawal of Trial Counsel and for
Appointment of Appellate Counsel", which named Mr. Robert Galvin as Counsel for Ms.
C F in this case, effective September 15, 2014 for the purposes of handling
any appellate matters on behalf of Ms. C F , to clarify as follows:
(1) IT IS ORDERED THAT the appointment of Mr. Robert Galvin as appellate
counsel for C F shall continue in effect in accordance with Texas
Family Code §107.016(2) until the earlier of:
a. the date all appeals in relation to any final order terminating parental
rights are exhausted or waived; or
b. the date the attorney is relieved or the attorney's duties or replaced by
another attorney after a finding of good cause is rendered by the court
on the record.
a
SIGNED on this ' (1/day of April, 2016
DARLENE BYRNE
PRESIDING JUDGE
BK14259PG119
Filed In The District Court
Of Travi8 County, Texas
SEP 15 2014
NO. D-l-FM-13-002917 At _M'Wf u
Amelia Rodrifluez-Mendoza Cterir
FN THE INTEREST OF § mTHE msTRICT COURJS Qf*
§
§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
AMINOR CHILD § 3^ Jl)mciAL msTmcj
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF TRIAL COUNSEL AND
FOR APPPOINTMFNT nF APPELLATE COUNSEL
On the l^> day ofSeptember, 2014, the above styled and numbered cause came on to be
heard. After examining the evidence and hearing the argument of counsel, the Court finds that Movant's
Motbn for Withdrawal ofTrial Counsel and for Appointment of Appellate Counsel should be
GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDRED AND DECREED that Tracy L. Harting. Attorney for the
Respondent Mother, F , be and hereby is discharged.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that j^pbgrf Grdltfln Attorney &Counselor
at Law. State Bar*M 0/P^ ^ ?1X 5frn (\nfor\'lQ) 5^1^ fall
Aus±iii^ri2xas 11701 •J5I1L->IM- 2(c7% bc and is
hereby substituted as counsel for the Respondent Mother.
SIGNED this |C* day of SSrT ,2014
jydaA
District Judge Presi< ing
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
No. 15-0546
C.S.F., PETITIONER
V.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Respondent
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas
ORDER
This Court abated this case to considerwhether petitionerC.S.F., a pro se indigent parentin
a government-initiated parental rights termination suit, has a statutory right to appointed counsel to
pursue a petition for review. These proceedings began with a report made after the child, then
thirteen, was hospitalized with mental health issues. The Department of Family and Protective
Services eventually placed the child in a residential treatment facility and sought termination of
parental rights. The trial court terminated both parents' rights, but only C.S.F. appealed. The CA
affirmed. Acting pro se, outside the time for filing a petition for review, C.S.F. filed several
documents in this court, including a motion for extension of time and a hand-written indigency
affidavit.
We concluded in In reP.M., S.W.3d (Tex. 2016), that in government-initiated
parental rights termination proceedings, the statutory right of indigent parents to counsel endures
until all appeals are exhausted, includingappellateproceedings in this Court. We concludehere that
C.S.F. should have counsel to pursue whatever remedies she may have available in this Court. We
ha* c previously held, in another context, that the statutory right to counsel in parental-rights
tci i ination cases included, as a matter of due process, the right to effective counsel. Inre M.S., 115
S.W.3d 534, 544 (Tex. 2003). And we have extended this holding to effective assistance of counsel
in pursuing an appeal; procedural requirements, in some cases, may have to yield to constitutional
guarantees of due process. See In reJ.O.A., 283 S.W.3d336, 339, 347 (Tex. 2009) (though parents
fai ed to file a timely statement of appellatepoints, due process required that parents nonethelessbe
allowed to complain on appeal of the ineffective assistance of counsel); cf. In re. E.R., 385 S.W.3d
55:. 567 (Tex. 2012) (citing//i reJ.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 339, 347); In re B.G., 317 S.W.3d 250, 258
(Tex. 2010). Not every failure to preserve error or take timely action, however, will rise to level of
ineffective assistance of counsel. In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d at 343; In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d at 549.
Wc do not suggest what our ultimate ruling may be on any argument, procedural, substantive or
jur sdictional. We conclude only that C.S.F. should be able to pursue any such argument with the
assistance of new counsel. We therefore refer the case to the trial court for appointment of counsel
to represent C.S.F in this Court. We direct the trial court to report the appointment to the Court
within thirty days. The case remains abated until further order.
Opirion delivered: April 1, 2016