COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: In the Interest of K.L.W., A Child

Appellate case number: 01-18-00485-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-02559J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

In the prior related appeal, 01-18-00311-CV, this Court’s July 6, 2018 

Memorandum Order of Abatement had abated that case for the trial court to hold a hearing 

to determine the appointment of counsel for the appellants, B.B.C., the mother of the child, 

K.L.W., and R.D.W., the father, who had requested the appointment of counsel. On July 

10, 2018, the trial court denied Juliane Crow’s motion to withdraw as appellate counsel 

and appointed Crow as both counsel and guardian ad litem for B.B.C., who was found 

legally incompetent, and appointed Valeria Lee Brock as R.D.W.’s counsel. This Court’s 

August 2, 2018 Order on Motions had denied the appellants’ pro se motion to transfer this 

parental termination case to another appellate court, after the Texas Supreme Court had 

denied their request on July 30, 2018, and dismissed as moot their motions to proceed as 

pro se and special appearances because they were not entitled to hybrid representation.

On August 8, 2018, B.B.C.’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw along 

with an Anders brief in this Court stating that the record presents no reversible error and 

that, therefore, B.B.C.’s appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel’s Anders brief also clarified that Donald M. 

Crane’s prior motion to withdraw as co-counsel for B.B.C. was reheard and withdrawn 

before the trial court on July 10, 2018. The Clerk of this Court’s August 8, 2018 letter 

notified B.B.C. that, absent a motion for an extension of time or a request for a copy of the 

records, her pro se response to her counsel’s Anders brief is due by August 28, 2018.

On August 9, 2018, R.D.W.’s appointed counsel filed a motion to abate the appeal 

in this Court. Counsel requests abatement of R.D.W.’s appeal until the trial court has ruled 

on her motion to withdraw, which she filed in the trial court on August 9, 2018. Counsel 

also attached two exhibits, several pages of emails indicating that R.D.W. had requested 
her to file a motion to withdraw, and a notice of hearing showing that she has set her motion 

to withdraw for a hearing on August 21, 2018.

Under the Texas Family Code, the trial court is responsible for appointing counsel 

to represent an indigent parent, like R.D.W., in a parental termination suit. See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 107.013(a)(1) (West 2014). “A parent who the court has determined is 

indigent for purposes of this section is presumed to remain indigent for the duration of the 

suit and any subsequent appeal unless the court, after reconsideration on the motion of the 

parent, the attorney ad litem for the parent, or the attorney representing the governmental 

entity, determines that the parent is no longer indigent due to a material and substantial 

change in the parent’s financial circumstances.” Id. at § 107.013(e). Once appointed, the 

attorney must continue to represent the indigent parent until the suit is dismissed, the 

appeals are exhausted or waived, or “‘the attorney is relieved of the attorney’s duties or 

replaced by another attorney after a finding of good cause is rendered by the court on the 

record.’” In the Interest of R.H., No. 01-14-00874-CV, 2015 WL 4594557, at *7 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 28, 2015, no pet.) (quoting TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 

107.016(2) (West 2014)). No provision of the Family Code expressly provides an indigent 

parent with a right of self-representation. Id.

However, this Court has held that, if a trial court elects to permit a parent in a 

termination proceeding to proceed pro se, the trial court must inform the parent of the 

dangers of self-representation before permitting the parent to proceed pro se. See In the 

Interest of R.H., 2015 WL 4594557, at *7 (citing In the Interest of C.L.S., 403 S.W.3d 15, 

21 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied)). In C.L.S., a private termination 

case, this Court held that “in parental termination cases, before a parent is permitted to 

represent himself pro se, the record should show that the trial judge has informed him that 

there are technical rules of evidence and procedure, and that he will not be given any special 

consideration simply because he has asserted his right of self-representation.” 403 S.W.3d 

at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing, inter alia, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 

806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)). And, because the “invited error” 

doctrine states that “a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific 

action that the complaining party requested,” the appellant may not complain on appeal 

that the trial court granted his request and released his attorney. In the Interest of R.H., 

2015 WL 4594557, at *8 (citations omitted).

Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of this Court to withdraw this Court’s 

August 2, 2018 Order on Motions, to mark as denied the pro se appellants’ motion to 

transfer, to mark Juliane Crow as lead counsel for B.B.C, and to add Donald M. Crane

as additional counsel for B.B.C. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.1(c), 6.2. The Court grants

R.D.W.’s counsel’s motion to abate and abates this appeal for the trial court to hold a 

hearing to determine whether good cause exists to permit appointed counsel for R.D.W., 

Valeria Lee Brock, to withdraw, to appoint new counsel, or to permit R.D.W. to proceed 

pro se after informing him of the dangers of self-representation and, if so, to enter such 
orders. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.016(2); In the Interest of R.H., 2015 WL 

4594557, at *7. The trial court shall issue written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendations as to these issues, separate and apart from any docket sheet notations

and the written orders pertaining to withdrawal, the appointment of new counsel, or 

permitting R.D.W. to proceed pro se.

Any hearing shall be conducted on or about August 21, 2018. The district clerk is 

directed to notify Valeria Lee Brock, Juliane Crow, and Donald M. Crane, and a 

representative of the appellee, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, to 

appear at the hearing. The trial court shall have a court reporter record the hearing and the 

court reporter is directed to file a supplemental reporter’s record within 7 days of the 

hearing. The district clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial 

court’s orders and findings and conclusions within 7 days of the hearing.

This appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental 

clerk’s and supplemental reporter’s record complying with this Order are filed with this

Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually Acting for the Panel

Date: August 10, 2018