Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
DISSENTING OPINION
No. 04-18-00742-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF I.L., C.C., and R.C., Children
From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01935
Honorable Linda A. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Dissenting Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2019
Assuming a parent is entitled to effective assistance of appointed counsel when the
Department no longer seeks termination of the parent’s parental rights, Ana has not demonstrated
trial counsel’s performance in this case fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Nor
has Ana shown prejudice under the circumstances. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
I agree with the majority that trial counsel’s appearance by telephone, although not ideal,
did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. I disagree, however, that trial counsel’s
failure to ensure the final order conformed with the trial court’s oral ruling “was so outrageous that
no competent attorney would have” allowed it to occur. Nothing precluded the trial court from
reconsidering its ruling between trial and entry of the final order of termination. 1 Certainly, trial
1
Indeed, “[c]ommon experience shows trial judges often change their oral rulings.” Elliott v. Lewis, No. 05-91-01216-
CV, 1994 WL 709333, at *8 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 16, 1994, no writ) (mem. op.).
Dissenting Opinion 04-18-00742-CV
counsel had no authority to prevent the trial court from exercising its prerogative to change its
mind and cannot be ineffective for failing to do so. The majority, however, implicitly assumes the
trial court did not intend to reconsider its ruling and, based on this assumption, concludes no
competent attorney would have failed to file a post-judgment motion to address the discrepancy
between the oral ruling and the final order. I do not believe the silent record before us supports the
implicit assumption that the trial court did not intend to reconsider its ruling. Also, Ana does not
argue, much less mention, in her brief the failure to file a post-judgment motion as a basis for the
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Even if Ana had raised this argument, as the majority
contends, there is a rebuttable presumption that counsel considered and rejected filing a motion
for new trial. See Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc). On
this silent record, Ana has not rebutted that presumption. Therefore, based on the record before us,
I respectfully disagree with the majority that trial counsel’s conduct fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness. See Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d
608, 623 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (“We may not speculate to find trial
counsel ineffective when the record is silent regarding counsel’s reasons for his actions.”).
Even assuming, however, trial counsel’s performance was deficient, I would hold Ana has
not shown she was deprived of a “fair trial” or that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s unprofessional error(s), the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See In
re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 545, 550 (Tex. 2003). The trial court orally pronounced Ana would be
appointed as a possessory conservator but would have no access to the children until further order
of the court. Although Ana was not named a possessory conservator in the final order, she remains
a parent of the children. As a parent, regardless of whether she is a possessory conservator, she
retains standing to file a suit for modification to seek access if the circumstances materially and
-2-
Dissenting Opinion 04-18-00742-CV
substantially change. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 156.002(a). Indeed, the trial court expressly
encouraged Ana to do so “if [she] can do everything that [she] need[s] to do” with respect to drug
treatment. Whether named a possessory conservator or not, Ana was not allowed access to the
children without taking further action before the court. Therefore, I would hold Ana has not
demonstrated prejudice.
For these reasons, I would overrule Ana’s sole issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
-3-