IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00452-CV

No. 10-10-00453-CV

No. 10-10-00454-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF 

L.A.M., JR., J.L.L., W.H., J.M.L. AND A.A.L., CHILDREN,

From the 12th District Court

Madison County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 09-11990-012-09, 09-11991-278-09 and 09-11992-012-09

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The memorandum opinion of the Court in Cause No. 10-10-452-CV dated March 

21, 2012 is withdrawn, and the following memorandum opinion is substituted therefor. 

Maurice L. is the biological father of J.M.L. and was also the permanent 

managing conservator of L.A.M., Jr., J.L.L., W.H., and A.A.L. The Texas Department of 

Family and Protective Services filed three suits for protection of the children, and the 

cases were tried to one jury. Based upon the jury verdict, the trial court entered a final 
In the Interest of L.A.M., Jr. Page 2

order terminating Maurice’s parental rights to J.M.L. and naming the Department as 

permanent managing conservator of all the children.1

Maurice filed a motion for new trial and a statement of points or issues to be 

presented on appeal as required by TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405 (b) (West 2008). The 

trial court held a hearing and found each point to be frivolous. Maurice appealed from 

trial court’s determinations. The trial court did not allow Maurice a copy of the 

complete reporter’s record. Maurice argued that he was entitled to a full record on 

appeal based upon his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. On July 6, 2011, this 

Court entered an order for the court reporter to prepare a full record from the trial and 

for the parties to file new briefs once the record was filed.

After the preparation of the full record, Maurice filed a brief in which he raises a 

single issue on appeal arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. In 

Texas there is a statutory right to counsel for indigent persons in parental-rights 

termination cases. In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 544 (Tex. 2003). The statutory right to 

counsel in parental-rights termination cases embodies the right to effective counsel. Id. 

We apply the standard set out in Strickland v. Washington in determining whether 

counsel provided effective assistance of counsel. Id. To determine if trial counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance, we must first determine whether counsel's 

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, if so, then 

determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the result would have been 

different but for counsel's errors. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984).

 

1 Maurice is the only appellant in this appeal. 
In the Interest of L.A.M., Jr. Page 3

Maurice lists eight complaints as the basis for his claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel:

1. Counsel should have asked for recusal of the trial judge, based on her 

bias;

2. Counsel did not protect Appellant from litigants who named him a 

child molester;

3. Counsel should have objected to a jury shuffle by anyone other than 

him;

4. Counsel should have objected when the court allowed the children to 

testify with their backs to Appellant;

5. Counsel should have called witnesses on Appellant’s behalf to testify 

about Appellant’s character and reputation and the character and 

reputation of trial witnesses;

6. Counsel was not prepared for trial;

7. Counsel did not ensure Appellant had a trial free from perjury;

8. The cumulative effect of Counsel’s errors caused an improper verdict 

and a deprivation of Appellant’s due process rights.

A brief must provide a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with 

appropriate citations to authorities and the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (i). Maurice does 

not provide any analysis or authorities supporting his claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Maurice has not shown that his trial counsel’s performance fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness.

With respect to whether counsel's performance in a particular case is deficient, 

we must take into account all of the circumstances surrounding the case, and must 

primarily focus on whether counsel performed in a "reasonably effective" manner. In re 

M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 545. We must give great deference to counsel's performance, 

indulging "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of 

reasonable professional assistance," including the possibility that counsel's actions are 

strategic. Id. It is only when "the conduct was so outrageous that no competent 
In the Interest of L.A.M., Jr. Page 4

attorney would have engaged in it," that the challenged conduct will constitute 

ineffective assistance. Id. Maurice has not shown that counsel’s decisions were not 

based upon sound trial strategy. Maurice has further not shown that the result of the 

proceeding would have been different but for counsel’s performance. We overrule 

Maurice’s sole issue on appeal.

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 28, 2012

[CV06]