1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 6 - 3 3 9 - CV
I N T HE I NT E R E S T OFX. P . , A C HI L D

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 415TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F PARKERCO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on T h i s i s a n ap p e a l fr o m a n o rde r t e rm i n a ti n g ap p e l l a n t’ s p a ren tal ri g h ts b a s e d o n a n i rre v o c a b l e a ffid a v i t o f v o l u n ta ryre l i n q u i s h m e n t. W e a ffir m . I I . Bac kgr ound O n O c to b e r12, 2005 , t he Texa s D epa rt m entofFa m i l y a nd Pr ot ec t i ve S e r v ic e s (T D F P S ) f ile d a p e t it io n t o t e r m in a t e a p p e lla n t ’s p a r e n t a l rig h t s t o h is2 ... T D F P S also fi l e d a p e ti ti o n to term i n a te X .P.’s m o th e r’ s p a ren tal ri g h ts

to X .P . a n d to a s e c o n d c h i l d , A .N . A p p e l l a n t i s n o t A .N .’s fa th e r.

3 ... S ee T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 161 . 103 ( V er non Supp . 2 0 0 8 ) ( se t t i ng fo rth re q u i re m e n ts o f a n a ffid a v i t o f v o l u n ta ryre l i n q u i s h m e n t o f p a re n ta l ri g h ts ).

4 ... TD FPS al so s oughtt o pl ac e A. N . w i t h a ppe l l ant ’ s br ot herD . P. 2 chi l d X. P. O n Sept em ber 7, 2006 , ap pel l ants i gne d a n i r r evo ca bl e a f f i dav i tof

2

v o l u n ta ryre l i n q u i s h m e n t o f p a re n ta l ri g h ts (th e A ffid a v i t) i n w h i c h h e s w o re t hatt er m i nat i on of t he par ent - chi l d r el at i onshi p bet w een appel l antand X . P. w as i n X .P .’s b e s t i n te re s t; re l i n q u i s h e d a l l o f h i s p a re n ta l ri g h ts a n d d u ti e s to X .P .; con se nt ed t o pl ac i ng X. P. fo r a d opt i on; an d w ai ved ci t at i on, not i ce , he ar i ng, and no t i ce ofent r y ofdecr ee. 3 A t r i a l on t hem e r i t so ft het e r m i na t i on w a s h e l d on Se pt e m be r7, 2006 . A ppel l ant , havi ng w ai ved ci t at i on and no t i ce, w as notpr esentatt r i al . The t r i al c o u rttoo kj u d i c ia l n o ti c e o f t h e A ffi d a v i t an d the n h e a rd te sti m o n yfr o m tw o w i t nesses— X . P. ’ s m ot herand X . P. ’ s chi l d pr ot ect i ve ser vi ces’ s cas e w or ker C ourt ney Thom ps on. X . P. ’ s m ot her t es t i f i ed t hat sh e obs e rv e d a p pel l ant execut e t he A f f i davi tand bel i eved t hat appel l ant t hou ght i tw as i n X . P. ’ s best i nt ere s t th atappel l ant ’ s br ot heradopt X . P. pur suantt o T D FPS ’ s servi ce pl an bec aus e i t w as “t he bes tpl ac e”f orX . P. Tho m pson t est i f i ed t hatappel l anthad 4 engag ed i n m ul t i pl e cr i m i nal act i vi t i es; w as bel i eved t o be “m ent al l y unst abl e”;
w as cur r ent l y i ncar cer at ed f or assaul t i ng X . P. ’ s aunt ; and had b een i ncar cer at ed5 ... S ee T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 263. 405 (d )(3 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 3 “o f fan d on”f ort he pas t t en yea r s r end er i ng app el l ant“ una vai l abl e”t o pa r ent X .P . N o c o n tro v e rti n g e v i d e n c e w a s p re s e n te d . O n Sept e m b e r 1 1 , 2006 , t he t r i al co urten t er ed a w r i t t en or derof t er m i nat i on f i ndi ng, i n r el eva ntpa rt , t hatap pel l ant had vol unt ar i l y exe cut ed t he A f f i dav i tan d t hat t er m i nat i on oft he par ent - chi l d r el at i ons hi p be t w ee n a ppe l l ant and X . P. w as i n X . P. ’ s best i nt er est . S ubsequ ent l y, appel l ant ’ s tr ia l c o unsel ti m e l yfi l e d a n o ti c e o f a p p e a l . O n O ct obe r 5, 200 6, t he t r i al co urthe l d a he ar i ng pu r su antt o f am i l y c ode se ct i on 2 6 3. 405 ( d) ( 3) t o de t er m i ne w het heran y a ppe al f r om t he t er m i nat i on or derw as f r i vol ous. Appel l ant ’ s t r i al cou ns el f i l ed a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw an d 5
a b r ie fin w h ic h h e a r g u e d t h a t a n y a p p e a l w a s f r iv o lo u s b e c a u s e t h e A f f id a v it
w asex ec ut ed i n c om pl i anc e w i t h t he st at ut or y r equ i r em ent s of fa m i l y co de sect i on 1 61 . 10 3 an d because t her e w as no evi denc e to s u p por ta cl ai m t hat appel l antexecut ed t he A f f i davi ti nvol untar i l y. TD PFS agr eed, and i tal so ar gued t hatan y a ppe al w asf r i vol ousbe ca us e a ppe l l antha d f ai l ed t o f i l e a s t at em ent ofpoi nt s and , t her ef or e, pr es erved no i ss uesf orap pel l at e re v i ew . Af t ert he hear i ng, t he t r i al court gr ant ed t he m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and l at ersi gned an or der fi n d i n g th a t a p p e l l a n t’s a p p e a l w a s fri v o l o u s .6 ... A ppe l l antal so co m pl ai ns t hatt r i al c o uns el w asi nef f ec t i ve f ornot

f ilin g a n a f f id a v ito fin d ig e n c e , b u th e re c o g n iz e s in h is a p p e lla t e b r ie ft h a tt h is f ai l ur e w as “s ubs equ ent l y cor r ec t ed on app ea l . ” A cc or di ngl y, w e w i l l n ot a d d res s th i s c o m p l a i n t. 4 I I I . I ssues Pr esent ed A ppe l l antch al l eng est he t r i al co urt ’ s f r i vol ous nes s det er m i n a ti on con t e n d i n g t h a t h e r e c e i v e d i n e f f e c t i v e o r n o a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l a f t ert he t er m i nat i on t r i al be ca us e t r i al co uns el w i t hdr ew f r om r epr es en tat i on w i t hout fi l i n g a s tate m e n t of p o i n ts a n d d i d n o t un d e rt a k e an y i n v e sti g a ti o n o f t h e fac ts su p p o rt i n g a c o n tes t to th e v o l u n tari n e ss o f t h e A ffi d a v i t. I n a ddi t i on, t o t he 6 ext entt he t r i al co urt ’ s f r i vol ous nes s f i ndi ng ha s any“ i m pac t ” on ou rr evi ew of t he m er i t s ofhi s i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e o fco uns el co m pl ai nt , ap pel l antco nt end s t hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s d i s c r et i on i n f i ndi ng a ny a ppe al f r om t he t er m i nat i on or derw asf r i vol ous . Appel l antal so co nt end s t hatf am i l y co de se ct i ons263. 405 ( b) ( 2) , 263. 405 ( d) ( 3) and 263 . 405 ( g) vi ol at e t he se par at i on ofpow er s doc t r i ne t o t he ext ent t hey pr eve nthi m f r om r ai si ng hi s i nef f ec t i ve a s s is t a n c e c la im f o rt h e f ir s tt im e o n a p p e a l. IV . I n e ff e c t iv eA s s is t a n c eo fC o u n s e l A ppe l l antas se rt s t hathi s t r i al co uns el ’ s perf or m anc e w a s def i ci ent bec aus e t r i al co uns el f ai l ed t o f i l e a s t at em ent of poi nt s w i t hi n f i f t ee n day s of t he dat e t he t r i al co urts i gne d i t s fi n a l o rderasr equ i r ed by s ec t i on7 ... S eeT EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 263 . 405 ( i ) ( V er non Supp. 200 8) ( pr ovi di ng

t h a ta n “ a p p e l l a t e c o u rtm a yn o tc o n s id e ra n yis s u e t h a tw a s n o ts p e c if ic a lly p re s e n te d to th e tri a l c o u rt i n a ti m e l yfi l e d s ta te m e n t o f p o i n ts ” ).

8 ... 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 (1 9 8 4 ); I n reM. S. , 115 S. W . 3d 534, 545 ( Tex. 2003 ) ( ado pt i ng Str i ckl and s t and ar d i n pa r ent al r i ght s te rm i n at i on p ro c e e d i n g s ).

9 ... M.S ., 115 S. W . 3d at545 ( quot i ng L. W. v. D ep’t o f Ch i ldren & Fam i l i es , 8 1 2 S o .2 d 5 5 1 (F l a . D i s t. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). 5 2 6 3 .4 0 5 (b )( 2 ) a n d , t h e r e f o r e , p u r s u a n tt o s e c t io n 2 6 3 .4 0 5 (i) , a p p e lla n tis pr ecl uded f r om r ai si ng an i ssue f orappel l at e r evi ew . Appel l antcl ai m s t hat , but 7 fo r t ri a l co u n se l ’s d e fi c i e n t pe rf o rm a n c e , th e re e x i ste d a rea so n a b l e p rob a b i l i ty t hatt he t r i al cour t w oul d have f oun d hi s appeal non- f r i vol ous. A ppel l antf urt her cl ai m s t hat due t o t r i al counsel ’ s def i ci entper f or m ance, appel l ant ’ s appeal w as “i r r evocabl y cr i ppl ed. ” I n a s u i t i n w h i c h term i n a ti o n o f t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d rel a ti o n sh i p i s s o u g h t, t he app r opr i at e s t and ar d ofr evi ew f or e ffe c ti v e a ss i st anc e o fco uns el i s t he s a me s t a n d a r d s e tf o rt h b yt h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C o u rti n S tric kla nd v. W ashi ngton . The Str

i ckl and st a n d a rd i swe l l
- es t abl i sh ed, f ai r l y s t r ai ght f or w ar d, 8
a n d p l a c e s a s u fficie n tl yh i g h b u rd e n o n th e m o v a n t to e s ta b l i s h th a t c o u n s e l ’s perf orm anc e w asde f i ci entan d t hatt he def i ci entpe r f or m anc e p r ej udi ce d t he com pl ai ni ng pa rt y. 910 ... M.S ., 115 S. W . 3d at545 ( quot i ng S tri ckl a n d , 466 U. S. a t687, 104 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 4 ).

11 ... Bre wer v. S ta te, 6 4 9 S .W .2 d 6 2 8 , 6 3 0 (T e x . C ri m A p p . 1 9 8 3 ); see M.S ., 115 S . W . 3d a t545.

12 ... M. S. , 115 S . W . 3d at545 ( quot i ng Ga rci av. S ta te, 57 S. W . 3d 436, 4 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ).

13 ... S tri ckl a n d , 466 U. S. a t687, 104 S. Ct . a t2064 .

6 W it h re s p e c tt o w h e t h e rc o u n s e l’s p e r f o r m a n c e in a p a rt ic u la rc a s e is def i ci ent , w e m us tt ak e i nt o ac cou nt al l of t he ci r cum st anc ess ur r oundi ng t he c a s e a n d f o c u s p r im a r ilyo n w h e t h e rc o u n s e l p e r f o r m e d in a “ r e a s o n a b ly ef f ec t i ve m ann er ”; t hati s, w het hert he er r or s m ade by c ouns el w er e s o s er i ous th a t co u n se l w a s n o t f u n c ti o n i n g as the “c o u n se l ” g u a ran tee d b ythe S i x th A m e n d m e n t. C ouns el ’ s per f or m anc e f al l s bel ow ac ce pt abl e l eve l s of 10 pe rfo r m anc e w hen t he r epr es ent at i on i s so gr os sl y de f i ci entast o r end ert he p ro c e e d i n g s “ fu n d a m e n ta l l yu n fa i r.” I n m aki ng t hi s det er m i nat i on, w e m ust 11 gi ve gr ea tde f er enc e t o cou ns el ’ s perf or m anc e and w e sh oul d f i nd i nef f ec t i ve assi st ance ofcounsel onl y i n t hose si t uat io n s w her e t he chal l enged condu ct
w a s “ s o o u tra g e o u s th a t n o c o m p e te n t a tto rn e yw o u l d h a v e e n g a g e d i n i t.” 12 T h e se c o n d p ron g o f Str i ckl and re q u i re s a s h o w i n g th a t c o u n s e l ’s e rro rs w er e so ser i ous t hatt hey d e p riv e d t he def endan tofa f ai rt r i al ; a t r i al w hose
r esul ti s r el i abl e. I n ot herw or ds, appel l antm ustshow t hatt her e i s a 1314 ... Id. a t694, 104 S. Ct . a t2068 . 15 ... E xp a rteO kere , 56 S. W . 3d 846, 855 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h 2001, p e t. R e f’d ).

16 ... InreD .W. , 2 4 9 S .W .3 d 6 2 5 , 6 4 5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 ), pet. denied, 2008 W L 287262 1, at*1 ( Tex. Jul y 25, 2008 ) ( “Thepe t i t i on f or r evi ew i s den i ed. I n den yi ng t he pet i t i on, w e nei t her app r ove nord i s a ppr ove t he hol di ng of t he c o u rt o f appeal s r egar di ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y ofTexas F a m i l yC o d e s e c ti o n 2 6 3 .4 0 5 (i ).”). 7 r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ilit yt h a t , b u tf o rc o u n s e l’s u n p r o f e s s io n a l e r r o r s , t h e re s u lt o f th e p roc e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. T h e re c o r d m u s ta f f ir m a t iv e ly 14 dem onst r at e counsel ’ s i nef f ect i veness. W i t h t he Str i ckl and gu i d el i nesi n m i nd, 15

w e co n side r ap p e l l a n t’ s c o m p l a i n t ab o u t co u n se l ’s co n d u c t. W i t h r ega r d t o a ppe l l ant ’ s con te n ti on t hatt r i al co uns el w asi nef f ec t i ve because t r i al counsel ’ s f ai l ur e t o t i m el y f i l e a st at em entofpoi n ts pr ecl uded appel l antf r om r ai si ng an i ssue f orappel la t e r evi ew , t hi s courthas hel d t hat s e c ti o n 2 6 3 .4 0 5 (i ) i s a n u n c o n s ti tu ti o n a l v i o l a ti o n o f th e s e p a ra ti o n o f p o w e rs pr ovi si on oft he Texa s C ons t i t ut i on. T h u s , e v e n a s s u m i n g tri a l c o u n s e l ’s 16 per f or m ance w as def i ci ent , appel l anti s capabl e ofobt ai ni ng app el l at e r evi ew of non - f r i v o l o u s , p r o p e r l yp r e s e r v e d i s s u e s n o tf i l e d i n a s t a t e me n to fp o i n t s. H e h a s, the refo re, no t be e n d e p ri v e d o f a m e a n i n g fu l ap p e a l i n this co u rt . A ppe l l antal so ar gue s t hat t r i al cou ns el w asi nef f ec t i ve bec aus e, w i t hout a sta tem e n t of p o i n ts, t h e tr ia l c o u r t h a d n o i ss u e s to co n side r i n m a k i n g i ts17 ... Evi den ce t hatt he af f i dav i tw ass i gne d, not ar i z ed, w i t nes se d, an d

exe cut ed i n c om pl i anc e w i t h s ec t i o n 161. 103 i s pr i m a f ac i e e vi den ce oft he a ffid a v i t’s v a l i d i ty . I n reR. B. , 2 2 5 S .W .3 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 4 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 7 , p e t. g ra n te d ); see InreV.R.W., 41 S. W . 3d 183, 190 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t] 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.); see al so T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 161 . 103.

18 ... O n c e p res u m e d v a l i d , th e affi d a v i t m a yb e se t as i d e o n l yu p o n p roo f, b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o ft h e e v id e n c e , t h a tt h e a f f id a v itw a s e x e c u t e d a s a re s u lt o f fra u d , d u re s s , o r c o e rc i o n . I n re D.R .L .M . , 84 S. W . 3d 281, 296 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 2 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 8 fri v o l o u s d e te rm i n a ti o n . T ri a l c o u n s e l , h o w e v e r, d i d i d e n ti fyto th e tri a l c o u rt t he is s u e appel l antnow cl ai m s w oul d ar guab l y suppo rtan appeal

— w het her app el l antex ec ut ed t he af f i dav i t of r el i nqui sh m ent of par ent al r i ght s vol unt ar i l y. Tr i al cou ns el sh ow ed t hat t he A f f i dav i tw ass i gne d byap pel l ant , not ar i z ed and
w i t nes se d, and t hati tot her w i seco m pl i ed w i t h t he st at ut or y r equ i r em ent s f or a n a f f id a v ito fv o lu n t a r yre lin q u is h m e n to fp a r e n t a l r i g h t s s e tf o rt h in f a m ily c od e s e c t i on 161. 103. H e furth e r r e p res e n ted tha t he h a d rev i e w e d the fac ts 17
s u r r o u n d in g t h e c a s e a n d t h a th e w a s a w a r e o fn o e v id e n c e t h a tt h e A f f id a v it
w as pr ocur ed t hr oug h f r aud, du re s s, orcoer ci on, ort hatappel l antw as i nco m pet entorunde rt he i nf l uen ce of dr ugs or al coh ol w hen he ex ec ut ed t he A ffi d a v i t. Based on the A f f i davi tand t he la c k o f e v idence t hati tw as

18 execut ed i nvol untar i l y, t he t r i al courtdet er m i ned t hatt he appeal w as f r i vol ous,19 ... T h e t r i al courtal so f oun d “no i ssue w as pr esent ed by t hi s appeal

pur suantt o [ a st at em entofpoi nt s] . ”

20 ... T o ngv. S tate , 25 S. W . 3d 707 , 714 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2000 ) ( hol di ng t hat“ w i t houts om e exp l ana t i on ast o w hy c ouns el ac t ed ashe di d, w e p r es um e th a t h i s a c ti o n s w e re th e p ro d u c t o f a n o v e ra l l s tra te g i c d e s i g n ” ); Jacks on v. S tate , 8 7 7 S .W .2 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) (e n b a n c ).

21 ... Tong , 25 S . W . 3d a t707. 9 s ta ti n g , “A p p e l l a n t . . . d i d n o t p re s e n t a n yi s s u e s o f l a w b yth i s a p p e a l [.]” 19 Thus , ev en i ft r i al co uns el ’ s per f or m anc e w as def i ci ent f ornotf i l i ng a s t at em ent o fp o in t s , t h e re s u lto ft h e f r iv o lo u s n e s s p r o c e e d in g w o u ld , i n a ll re a s o n a b le pr obab i l i t y, have been t he sam e. A ppel l antf urt herasks t he cour t t o specul at e as t o t r i al counsel ’ s m ot i ves f ornothavi ng app el l antt est i f y att he f i nal hearin g . A ppel l antcont ends t hat one po s s ib il ity f orhi s l ack oft est i m ony i s col l usi on betw een hi s t r i al counsel and t he ot herpa rt i est o c onc ea l t hat t he A f f i dav i tw aspr ocu r ed t hr ough f r aud , d u res s, o r co e rci o n . W h e re th e rec o rd i s s i l e n t, it is im p e r m i ss i b l e for u s to specul at e t hat t r i al coun sel ’ s per f or m ance w as t he pr odu ctofsi ni st erm ot i ves. 20 I ns t ea d, w e p r es um e t hatt r i al co uns el ac t ed outofs ound t r i al s t r at egy . 21 A ppe l l antas se rt s t hatt r i al c o u n s e l ’ s con t ent i on t hatt her e w asno evi dence t hatt he A f f i davi tw as execut ed i nvol untar i l y i s i ncor r ect . H e ar gues t hatThom ps on’ s t es t i m ony con st i t ut es so m e e vi den ce t hathe di d notha ve t he
m ent al capaci t y t o e x e c u te t he A f f i davi tvol untar i l y: “H e [ appel l ant ] has22 ... “ A con cl us or y st at em ent i s one t hatdoe s notpr ovi de t he unde r l yi ng

f act s t o suppo rt t he concl usi on. ” Ha yn es v. Cityo f Be a um o n t, 35 S. W . 3d 166, 1 7 8 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.); s e e A MS Co n s tr. Co ., I n c . v. W

a rm Sp ri ngsReh a b . F

o un d., I n c ., 9 4 S .W .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 7 ( T e x . A p p .— C o rpu s C h ri sti 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.).

23 ... Lum bi

s v. Tex . D ep’t of Prot. & R eg . S e rvs. , 65 S . W . 3d 844, 851 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 2 ). A p p e l l a n t m a y h a v e s i m p l y h a d a c h a n g e o f h e a rt a n d w a n t e d t o r e v o k e t h e A f f id a v it . E v id e n t ia r y s u p p o rt c a n b e f o u n d f o rt h is i n a p p e l l a n t’ s p ro se fi n d i n g s. A fter th e tr i a l c o u rt fo u n d a p p e l l a n t’ s a p p e a l to b e f r iv o lo u s a n d g r a n t e d t r ia l c o u n s e l’s m o t io n t o w it h d r a w , a p p e lla n th im s e lf f i l ed w i t h t he t r i al co urta pr o s e m ot i on e nt i t l ed Fi r stA m e n d e d N ot i ce of A ppeal , i n w hi ch appel l antr ef er r ed t o t he S ept em ber 7 , 2 00 6 ter m i nat i on as 10 engag ed i n m ul t i pl e cr i m i nal act i vi t i es and att hi s t im e h e i s, w e bel i eve, m ent al l y unst abl e. . . . ” W e do not consi derTh om pson’ s concl usor y t est i m ony suff i ci entt o r ai se an i ss ue r ega r di ng w het hera p pel l antw asl ega l l y c om pet entt o e xec ut e t he A ffid a v i t. T h o m p s o n d i d n o t e x p l a i n w h a t s h e m e a n t b y“ m e n ta l l yu n s ta b l e ,” a n d the rec o rd c o n t a i n s n o u n d e rl y i n g fac ts su p p o rt i n g h e r op i n i o n as to appel l ant ’ s m ent al st at e. N o r do e s th e rec o rd s h o w t h a tsh e i s q u a l i fi e d to 22
m a k e a c l i n i c a l a s s e s s m e n t o f a p p e l l a n t’s m e n ta l s ta te . A ppel l antsuggest s t hatsi nce i t w as obvi ous t hat he w as unh appy that he executed t he A f f i davi t , t r i al coun sel shoul d have know n t hat t her e exi st ed an i ss ue r ega r di ng t he vol unt ar i nes s oft he A f f i da v i t . M er e e xpr es si on of em ot i on, how ever , even at t he t i m e of si gni ng of an af f i davi t , does not r ender t he af f i dav i ti nvol unt ary. 23t he t i m e w hen app el l ant“w ai ved hi s par ent al r i ghtsvol untar i l y. ” A tt hatsam e

t i m e, ap pel l antal so f i l ed a M ot i on f orA ppoi nt m entofCounse l on Appea l an d a g a in re f e r r e d t o S e p t e m b e r7 , 2 0 0 6 a s t h e t im e w h e n a p p e lla n t“ v o lu n t a r ily r el i nqu i shed hi s par ent al r i ghts . ”

24 ... A ppe l l ant as ks us t o s ur m i set hats om et hi ng a boutt he A f f i dav i tan d t he w ay i tw as pr ocur ed w as i n er r orf r om t he f actt hathe w ant ed t o a p p e al t he t er m i nat i on or der . Th er e i s nothi ng i n t he r ecor d, how ever , t o suppo rtsuch an i nf er ence. 11 A ppel l antdi d not com pl ai n t hatt he A f f i davi tw as i nvol untary unti l M ay 16 , 20 07 , w hen he f i l ed a m ot i on f orenf or cem entoft he t r i al court ’ s or dert hat h e b e b e n c h w a rr a n t e d , i n w h i c h ap p e l l a n t state d : “. . . h e w a s m i sled i n to bel i evi ng it [s ic ] h e w oul d r el i nqu i sh hi s par ent al r i ght, he w oul d have l i m i t ed a c c e s s to h i s s o n .” T h e re i s , h o w e v e r, n o e v i d e n c e i n th e re c o rd to s u p p o rt t h is a lle g a t io n . T h e r e a r e n o c o n d it io n s o rp r o m i s e s o u t l i n e d in t h e A f f id a v it i t se l f . Appel l ants i gne d t he A f f i dav i t ; t he A f f i dav i t con t ai ns t he si gna t ur esof t w o w i t nes se s; an d e ac h pa ge oft he A f f i dav i tbe ar s app el l ant ’ s i ni t i al s. The A f f i davi t s ta te s t hatappel l anti s aw ar e t hathe i s gi vi ng up al l ofhi s par ent al
r i ghtst o X . P. t o T D FPS ; t hat t he A f f i davi t i s f i nal , per m anent, and i r r evocabl e; and t hat , i fap pel l antch ang eshi s m i nd, he ca n ne ver f or ce TD PFS t o “ des t r oy, r evoke, orr et ur n” t he A f f i davi t . Th e t er m i nat i on or der i t sel f does not r ef er ence any p r o mi s e s o r s t a t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t wo u l d h a v e a n y a c c e s s , l i mi t e d or ot her w i se , t o X. P. 2425 ... InreB.B.F ., 595 S . W . 2d 873, 875 ( Te x. App . — Sa n Ant on i o 1980, n o w ri t); see T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 161 . 103. 12 I n con cl us i on, upon con duc t i ng a ca r ef ul and t hor ou g h re v i e w o f t he
r ecor d, w e f i nd no basi s fo r appel l ant ’ s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance cl ai m . Even as su m i ng t r i al co uns e l ’s pe r f or m anc e w asde f i ci ent , ap pel l antw asnot pr ej udi ce d byhi s t r i al co uns el ’ s con duc t . The t er m i nat i on or deri s su pport ed by unc ont r ove rt ed t es t i m ony t hatap pel l antvol unt ar i l y e xec ut ed t he A f f i dav i tan d t hathe t hou ght adop t i on byD . P. w as “t he best pl ace” f or X . P. The evi dence c le a r lya n d c o n v in c in g lye s t a b lis h e s t h a tt h e A f f id a v itw a s e x e c u t e d in c o m p lia n c e w it h t h e s t a t u t o r yre q u ir e m e n t s o fs e c t io n 1 6 1 .1 0 3 o ft h e f a m ily code. Ther e i s no e vi de n c e t hatt he A f f i dav i tw asex ec ut ed i nvol unt ar i l y.

25 A ppe l l ant ’ s f i r sti ss ue i s ove r r ul ed.26 ... Bec aus e w e h avead dr es se d t he m er i t s ofap pel l ant ’ s i nef f ec t i ve

assi st ance ofcounsel c la im , as w el l as appel l ant ’ s ar gum entt hatt he t r i al c o u rt’s fri v o l o u s n e s s fi n d i n g w a s e rro n e o u s , w e n e e d n o t re a c h a p p e l l a n t’s c on s t i t ut i on a l c ha l l e ng e s t o f a m i l y c od e s e c t i on s 263. 405( b) ( 2) , 263. 405( d) ( 3) a n d 2 6 3 .4 0 5 (g ). S ee T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 7 .1 ; I nreB. L . D. , 113 S. W . 3d 340, 349 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ), certdenied by D o ss e y v. Tex . D ep ’t o f Pro te c tive & R eg ul a to ry S ervs. , 5 4 1 U .S . 9 4 5 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 1 6 7 4 , 1 5 8 L .E d .2 d 3 7 1 (2 0 0 4 ). 13 V . Concl us i on H avi n g ove r r ul ed app el l ant ’ s f i r sti ss ue, w e a f f i r m t he j udgm entoft he tr i a l co u rt . 26
P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t21, 2008