1 ... T o p ro te c t t h e p riv a c y o f t h e p a rtie s in th is c a se , w e id e n tif y the c h ild re n b y the ir initials a n d th e p a re n ts b y the ir fi rs t na m e s o n ly. See T EX . F AM . C O D E A NN . § 1 0 9
. 0 0 2 (d) (V ernon 2 0 0 8 ). i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 24 1- CV IN THE I NT ER EST OF B.G .H. Fr om the 166th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-PA-00199 Honora ble Peter Saka i, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 14, 2009 REVERSED AND REMANDED This is a n appea l from an or der te rminating Naamon D.’s 1 pare ntal rig hts to his child, B.G .H. I n two issues, Naa

mon D. contends the t rial court err ed in di smissi ng as fr ivolous his pos t-judg ment mot ion re la tin g to la c k of no tic e of the tr ia l se tti nga nd the de nia l of

his ri g ht t o a

jur y tr ia l. B e c a

us e the rec ord shows Naa

mon D
. rec eived inadequate notice of the trial setting, we reve rse the t rial
c ourt ’s or de r t e rm inatin g his pa re nta l r ig hts a nd

re mand thi s c a us e fo r a ne w tri a l.04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND To initiate this sui t, the Texas Depar tment o f F a mily and Protec tive Service s filed its Orig inal Petition for Protection of a Child, for Conserva tor ship, and for Te rmination in Sui t Affe cting the Parent-Child Relationship. Throug hout the course of the li tigation, Naamon D. was repre sented by two or three differ ent attorne y s, and numerous hear ings wer e conduc ted. Naa mon D. also filed a jur

y demand. Af

ter the case had been pending approximately a y ear , Naamon D.’s then-attorney filed a motion to w it

h dr a w , w h ic h w a s g r a n te d
. T h e mo ti o n , w h ic h N a a mo n D
. s ig n e d o f f o n , n o te d th at trial was se t for F ebrua

ry 2, 2009. Howeve r, when the c ase w as ca lled for tria l on Febr uary 2, 2009, Na a mon D. did no t app e a r. Th e tr ia l dat e wa s th e n r e se t to Ap ri l 13 , 2 00 9. Ho we ve r, wh e n th e c a se
was c alled for

trial on April 13, 2009, Naa mon D. ag ain failed to a

ppear . The trial court then place d
a cour tesy call to Naa

mon D., and he a

ppear ed shortly t h er ea fter. N aamon D. w as under the impression he had an attorney repr esenting him, but he did not. Naamon D. conte nded that he ha d not re ce i v ed ad v an ce notice of the trial se tting and r equeste d a re set. I n fac t, Naamon D. stated
sever al times throug hout the trial that he ha d not r ece ived notice of the trial setting. T he trial c ourt denied Na amon D.’s r equest for a re set and proc eede d with the trial. During the trial, there wer e seve ral re fer ence s to whether Naamon D. had re ceive d advanc e
no tic e of the tr ia l se tting . A t on e po int , M r. Willi ng ham, t he a tto rn e y

re pr e se nti ngthe c hil d, in qu es t i o n i n g a D ep ar t m en tca s ew o rk er , as k edt h e f o l l o wi n g: Q: As fa r a s n o t i ce , we h adt h e t ri al s et – we h adp ri o r j u ry

t ri al s et t i n g, jur y tr ia l se tti ngin F e br

ua ry the 2n d, c or

re c t? A: Cor

re c t. Q: [Naamon D.] wasn’t pre sent at that time? A: Cor

re c t.04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 3- Q: And we ha

ve – since then we a lso ha d a – per manenc y revie w on Marc h 6th, 20 09 , c or re c t? A: Ye s. Q: And Mr. – wa s [N aa m o n D. ] prese nt? He wa s notified of it at the January he a ri ng , c or

re c t? A: Ye s. Towar d the end of

the trial, the following exchang e occ urre d: Naamon D.: See, f

i rs t o f al l , I wa s n o t n o t ified that we had a he a ri ngtod a y . I

– I ha pp e ne d to c a ll. Court: L et’s clar ify that. [S tate’s attorney ], what notice do we

h av e t h at [ Na am o n D. ] h adn o t i ce o f t o d ay ’s h ea ri n g? Sta te : Judg e , ma ili ngout – a ma ili ngou t to his a dd

re ss. Other tha n that, Idon’t think we have any thing e lse. Court: Did y ou – he didn’t sig n off on a scheduling order ? Sta te : He wa s n ot p re se nt at th e la st t ri a l. C o u rt : O k a y. State: – hear ing. N ow, he did sig n for that tria l date. C o u rt : O k a y. State: He did sig n a sche duling or der f or that trial date
. Na a mon D. : Som e wh e re do wn

the lin e it w a s r e se t. State: I t was re set the day that he did not show up. N a a mo n D
. : Id id

n ’ t g e t n o n o ti c e [s ic ]. Court : [Na a mon

D. ], do n’ t in te rr

up t. State: J udg e, I think I have the order of withdrawa l with the

tri a l d a te o n it
. H e w a s p r e s e n t a t t h e w it h dr a w al he a ri ng , a nd that w a s th e or de r e nte re d b y the Court .04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 4- C o u rt : O n l y r e a s o n I’ m a s k i n g i s b e c a u s e [ N a a m o n D
. ] s a ys he didn’t g et any

notice. State: I ’m g oing to se e. Court : An d th e re is a fu nd a me nta l pr e mis e that pe op le sh ou ld g et notice. State: Show y ou, J udg e. Court: That’s the othe r re ason why this Court doesn’t like g ivi ngre se ts. Sta te : Do y ou

have the or de r o f w ith dr a wa l? M r . Wi ll in g h a m: J ud g e , w e have g ot the motion for

withdrawa l where it has g ot the sp e c if ic date s. State: May

Iapproa ch? Court : Ye s. S t at e: T h i s i s t h e m o t i o n , an d h e wa s p re s en tat t h e h ea ri n g. Court: All rig ht. Court has taken judicial notice of the motion

to withdraw of c ounsel fi l ed by J amissa J armon [N a a mo n D
. ’ s f

o r me r a tt o r n e y ]. Ms. Hu ff : I wa s le tti ng him loo k a t it. He – his sig natur e is on it. He wa s th e re a t th e c ourt

date on it. Naamon D.: I have that form rig ht there. O kay . But they didn’t let

me know – they have no note from here that it going [si c] to be another. Court : Th a t’s what ha pp e ns wh e n y ou

do n’ t c ome to c ourt , [Naamon D.] Na a mon D. : Th e y

ha d – the y re se t it
. Court: That’s right
. T hey could have . They

could have , and they should have e ntere d a judgme nt ba ck then. And had I been the monitoring c ourt judge , Idon’t think I04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 5- wo uld have g ive n y ou a

re se t. I did n’ t g ive a ny

re se ts thi s mo rn ing . I

did n’ t g ive a ny

re se ts t od a y . A ll r ig ht. Any thing e lse in closing? Any

body e lse have any

thing t o s a y? Ba sed on the e vidence , the cour t then terminated N aamon D.’ s pare ntal rig hts. N a a mo n D
. f

il e d a ti me ly mo ti o n f

o r n e w tr ia l a n d s tate me n t o f a p p e ll a te p o in ts with an attache d aff

idavit in which he argued, among other things, that he did not have adva nce notice of the April 13, 2009, trial setting and that he had been denied a proper ly reque sted jury trial. Naa mon D.’s motion f o r n e w tr ia l w a s h e a r d o n M a y 7 , 2 0 0 9
. N a a mo n D
. a p p e a r e d b y a

p p o in te d c o u n s e l w ho argued that, ac cordingto Naamon D.’ s aff idavit, Naamon D. had not rec eived notice of the Apr il 13, 2009, trial setting a

nd had bee n denied a

proper ly reque sted jury

trial. No sworn testimony

was g iven at the motion for ne w trial hea ri ng . Howeve r, the State’s attorney argued to the t rial cour

t that Naamon D. ha d rec eived notice of the Apr il 13, 2009, trial date: State: I n reg ards to stateme nt [ of appellant point] one that [ Naamon D.] has sworn to, he wa s not notified of the April 13, 2009, trial date, and further down i t say s it was not intentional nor the re sult of neg lige nce, Iwo uld a rgue tha

t it wa s n e g lig e nc e , ju dg e . Pr ior to t he Ap ri l 13 th date, we had a trial date in Februa ry of which [Naamon D.] was give n notice o f [s ic ]. H e w a s g iv e n n o ti c e b y h is p r e v io u s a tt o r

n e y of rec ord, Jamis sa Jarmon, that there wa s a jury trial set for F ebrua

ry 2, 2009, in the 166th District Court at 8:30 in the morning . This was by his ow n attorney . He wa s prese nt at the motion for withdraw al. She handed him the motion and a copy of the order , so he wa s informed of that trial date. He did not show up. I t was at that trial date that we did seek a continuance to further

deal w i t h some issues in the case
. He wa s notified previously of the ne x t tria l date, which w ould have been A pril 13, 2009. C o u rt : I s t h e r e a n y

d o c u m e n t a t i o n t o s u

p p o rtt h a ts t a t e m e n to f

y o u r s ? State: J udg e, there was a mailing out and discussion at the staffing , but we did not do any

cer tified ma il i n r e g a rd s to tha t.04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 6- Court: What about the rese t f rom that Fe bruar

y trial date, did he not sign of f on that? State: He did not sign off on it, Judge , beca use he wa s not present. He failed to show up. Court : So h owc a n y ou

make the a sse rt ion that he ha d k no wl e dg e of

thi s la st t ri al s et t i n g? St a te : The r e w a s e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l b y th e c a s e w o r k e r th a t at the sta ff ingsh e inf

or me d h im and he ac knowledg ed that the jury trial was on April 13, 2009. Court : So that w a s d e ve lop e d at th e tr ia l? State: Yes, sir. I

believe it wa s. Now in reg ards – and so Iwould argue that he wa s neg ligen [ t] . Had he shown up at the F ebrua ry 2nd trial date, he wo uld have be e n a

ble to sig n the re se t a nd sh ow up a t th e Ap ril 13th [ trial setting]. Had he – and I will a rg ue that he w as informe d of this trial date. The trial c ourt then over

ruled Na amon D. ’s m o t i o n for ne w trial, sustained Na amon D.’s indige nce c laim, and orde red a repor ter’s r ecor d prepa

red a nd delivere d to this cour

t and to Naamon D.’s attorne y . The trial c ourt furthe r found Na amon D.’s a ppellate points to be fr ivolous. D I S CUS S I ON On appe al, Naa

mon D. argues that the trial court erre d in dismiss ing a s frivolous his attempt to seek post-judgme nt r elief relating to la ck of notice of the trial setting and the denial of his rig ht to a jury trial. A. Frivolous Appeal Section 263.405 of the Te x as F amily Code sets forth the pr ocedur e for appea ling a final orde r terminating pare ntal rig hts. A party wishing to a

ppeal unde r that sec tion must file with the trial court a stateme nt of the points on which the party intends to appea l. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263.405(b)( 2) (Ve rnon 2008). Onc e a pa rty files a statement of appellate points, the Fa mily Code04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 7- require s the trial cour

t to hold a hear ing to de termine whether the appe al is frivolous. Id. § 263.405(d). The appellant may then appeal t he trial court’s finding that his appe al is frivolous by filing w ith the ap p el l ate c ourt the re porter’ s rec ord and c lerk’s r ecor d of the he aringin which the issue of whether the appe al is frivolous was de termined. Id. § 263.405(g ). Howe ver, suc h an appe al is limit ed to the t rial court’s deter mination that the appe al is frivolous. Se e In re T.C. , 200 S.W .3d 788, 791 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2006, no pet.). The t ri al court’s frivolous finding also results in a denia l to an indige nt appellant the r ight to a fre e repor

ter’s rec ord and cler

k’s rec ord of the u n d er l y i n g t ri al. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 13 .0 03 (a )( 2) (A ) ( Ve rn on 20 02 ); In re T.C. , 200 S.W .3d at 792. I n this case, howe ver, imm e diate ly

a ft e r the tr ia l court ma de the fr ivo lou s a pp e a l f ind ing , it or de re d th e c ourt

re po rt e r t o pr ov ide c op ie s o f t

he re po rt e r’ s r e c or d o f t

he tr ia l on the me ri ts to N a a mon

D. ’s a tto rn e y

a nd to t his court on a ppeal. Thu s , i n co n sidering Naamon D.’s appe llate issues, this court has the be nefit not only of a r ecor d of the post-trial he aringbut also of the trial on the me rits. I n deter min i n g wh et h er an appe al is frivolous, the trial cour t “may consider w hether

the appellant ha s prese nted a substantial question for appellate revie w.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 13 .0 03 (b ) ( Ve rn on 20 02 ); see T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 263.405(d)( 3) (Ve rnon 2008) (i nc or po ratin g se c tio n 1 3. 00 3( b) by re fe re nc e ). F ri vo lou s is de fi ne d a s la cki ng an arg ua ble ba sis either in law or in fac t. De La Ve ga v. Taco Cabana, Inc. , 974 S.W .2d 152, 154 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet). We revie w a tria l co u rt ’s finding of fr ivolousness under an a buse of discretion standa

rd. Id.04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 8- B. Notice of Trial A def endant who ha s made a

n appea ranc e in a c ause has a c onstitut ional rig ht to notice of the trial setting s pursuant to the F ourtee nth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. LBL Oil Co. v. Int’l Power Serv., I

nc. , 77 7 S.W. 2d 39 0, 39 0- 91 (T e x. 19 89 ); se e als o U. S. C O N ST . amend. XIV. Fur ther, Texas Rule of C ivil Procedur e 245 provides that when a contested case has been previously set for trial, the cour

t may rese t t h e ca s e t o a l at er da y on any rea sonable notice to the parties or by ag ree ment of the pa

rties. T EX . R. C IV . P. 245. And, not ice given on the day of t rial has been he ld not to be re asonable
. See M

ah a n d v. Delaney , 60 S.W .3d 371, 375 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2001, no pet.). We now turn to the rec ord of the pr ocee dings be low to determine w h et her N aamon D.’ s appellate points relating to whether he r ec ei v ed notice of

trial are frivolous. As set for th above, Naamon D. stated at trial that he did not rec eive notice of the trial se tting until he re ceive d a phone call that morning advising him to appea r at the courthouse. He filed a post -judg ment aff idavit to the
same e ffe ct. Duringthe trial, there wer e discussions perta ining to whe ther Na amon D. re ceive d notice; howeve r, there was no c lear controve rting evidenc e to Naa mon D.’s claims that he ha d not
re c e ive d n oti c e . I t w a s e sta bli sh e d d ur ingtho se dis c us sio ns a t tr ia l th a t N a a mon D
. ha d, in f a c t,
rec eived notice of the Fe bruar y 2, 2009, trial date but ha d failed to a ppear . I t was fur

ther e stablished that th e tr ial was re se t to Ap ri l 13 , 2 00 9. Whe n q ue sti on e d b y

the c ourt , th e Sta te ’s a tto rn e y sa id notice had b ee n m ail ed to Naa mon D.’s addr ess. Howe ver, the re w as no evide nce or testimony

at t ri al t h at Na am o n D. h adre ce i v edn o t i ce o f t h e A p ri l 1 3 , 2 0 0 9 , t ri al s et t i n g. L ater , at the post-judgme nt he aring , when Naamon D.’s attorne y urg ed lac k of notice of

the Ap ri l 13 , 2 00 9, tr ia l se tti ng , th e Sta te ’s a tto rn e y a g a in me nti on e d th a t N a a mon D. ha d, in f

a c t,04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 9- rec eived notice of the F ebrua ry 2, 2009, setting, a

fac t that was not in dispute. The S tate’s attorney then stated, i n conclusory fashion, that Na amon D. wa s notified of the Apr il 13, 2009, trial date. Up on qu e sti on ingby

the c ourt , the Sta te ’s a tto rn e y re pr e se nte d to the c ourt

that no tic e of

the Ap ri l 13, 2009, setting had bee n mailed out and discussed at a staff ing. I n response to further

questioning by the cour t, the State’s attorney t o l d t h e court that the c asew orker had testified at trial about i n fo rm i n g Naamon D. of the trial date at a sta ffing and about him ac knowledg ing the trial date of April 13, 2009. T h e t rial judg e then a sked, “So that wa s develope d at trial? ” The State’s attorne y responde d, “Ye s, sir. Ibelieve it was.” The State’s attorney then ar g ued Na amon D. wa s neg lige nt for not appe aringat the F ebrua ry 2, 2009, trial setting and stated, “I will a rg ue that he was infor

med of this [ April 13, 2009] trial date.” On a pp e a l, the Sta te a rgue s tha t the re c or d s ho ws Na a mon D. did re c e ive no tic e of

the Ap ri l 13, 2009, trial setting. Specifically , in its brief, the State urg es, “[i] t appea rs [Naamon D.] attended the Marc h 6 perma

nency revie w hea

ring , wher e his ca seworke r informe d him of the new tria l date.” Howeve r, the rec ord ref

lects that at trial, while the case worke r did r efe r to the Marc h 6, 2009, perma nency revie w hea

ring , her te stimony

only confirme d that Naamon D. had been notified of the perma nency revie w hea

ri n g i n J anuar

y . The c asew orker

did not make any

ref ere nce to whe ther Naamon D. rec eived notice of the Apr il 13, 2009, trial setting. Fur ther, in its brief, the State urg es “[ Naamon D.] had noti ce thr oug h his counsel of the tria l
se tti ng s and

it a pp e a rs tha

t th e re set tr ia l date ha d b e e n ma ile d to his a dd re ss. ” I n s up po rt

of thi s statement, the State re fer ence s the cler k’s re cord, w hich shows Naam o n D. re ceived notice of the Fe b ru ary 2, 2009, not the April 13, 2009, trial setting . Fur ther, the State r efe renc es the re porter’ s
rec ord of the post-judg ment h ea ri n g in which the State’s attorney repr esente d to the judge that04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 10- Naamon D. rec eived notice of t he April 13, 2009, trial setting through “a mailing out and discussion at the staff

ing.” Upon furthe r questioning b y t h e court, the State’s attorne y contende d that the
case worke r had te stified at trial that she ha d informed Naamon D. of t he Apr il 13, 2009, trial setting at a staf fing . Howeve r, a r eview of the re porter’ s rec ord fr om the trial shows the State’s attorney was mistaken. The c asew orker did not testify

that she had informed Naamon D
. of the April 13, 2009, trial setting. T hus, the only ref ere nces at either the tria l or the post-judg ment hear ing r eg arding whether Naamon D. rec eived notice of the Apr il 13, 2009, tr ial setting c ame f rom counsel’ s argument, which wa s err oneously based on her rec ollection of the testimony at trial, and not fr om the wi tne sse s’ a c tua l te sti mony . In it s bri e f, the Sta te fu rt he r ar g ue s tha t er

ro r, if a ny , w a s h a rm le ss beca use Na amon D. did a

ppear at trial and participated. Howeve r, as stated above , notice g iven on the day of trial is not rea sonable notice
. See M ahand , 60 S.W .3d at 375. Our re view of the proce eding s in the t rial court leads us to the conc lusion that Naamon D. did not rece ive notice of

the April 13, 2009, trial setting until the morning of trial whe n the cour t telephoned him. I t further appea rs Naa mon D. was errone ously

denied a jury trial bec ause he was la te fo r t he Ap ri l 13 , 2 00 9, tr ia l se tti ng . We , th e re fo re, r e ve rs e the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s th a t hi s appellate points are f

rivolous. Or din a ri ly , at th is p oin t, we wo uld be lim ite d to de te rm ini ng wh e the r the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in making the frivolous appe al finding s; however , beca use we do have the benef

it of the rec ord of the trial on the merits, we are able to fur ther find that Naamon D. is entitled to a new trial be cause he did not rece ive ade quate notice of the trial setting and was denied the rig ht to a proper ly reque sted jury trial.04
- 09
- 00 24 1- CV

- 11- We theref

ore r ever se th e trial court’s orde r terminating Naamon D.’s par ental rig hts and
rema nd the ca use for a new trial.

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice