Court Opinion

ID: 9811641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:26:43.369682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:46.806369
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result. However, I differ with the majority on two issues; the requirement for the preservation of error regarding the sufficiency of the evidence (issue three) and the right to effective assistance of counsel (issue four).
Preservation of Error
The majority follows the First, Second and Thirteenth Courts of Appeals and holds that legal and factual sufficiency may not be raised unless properly preserved. I would follow the Tenth Court of Appeals’ rationale in In the Interest of A.P., 42 S.W.3d 248, 254-56 (Tex.App.—Waco 2001, pet. filed); see also In the Interest of A.V., 57 S.W.3d 51, 58 (Tex.App.—Waco 2001, pet. filed); In the Interest of S.R.M., 601 S.W.2d 766, 769-70 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1980, no writ).
Sufficiency of the Evidence
The jury was instructed that for appellant’s parental rights to be terminated, they must find by clear and convincing evidence that appellant:
1. knowingly placed or knowingly allowed [the children] to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child(ren); [§ 161.001(1)(D), Tex. Fam. Code], or
*5442. engaged in conduct or knowingly placed [the children] with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the children); [§ 161.001(1)©, Tex. Fam. Code], or
3. constructively abandoned [the children] who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services or an authorized agency for not less than six months and (1) the Department or authorized agency has made reasonable efforts to return [the children] to the parent; (2) the parent has not regularly visited or maintained significant contact with [the children]; and (3) the parent has demonstrated an inability to provide [the children] with a safe environment; [§ 161.001(1)(N), Tex. FaimCode], or
4. failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of [the children] who [has/have] been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child(ren)’s removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child(ren), [§ 161.001(l)(O) Tex. Fam.Code], or
6. refused to submit to a reasonable and lawful order of a court under Subchap-ter D, Chapter 261; (§ 161.001(1), Tex. Fam.Code), and
In addition to any 'one of the above grounds, for parental rights to be terminated in this case it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights would be in the best interest of the children.
Utilizing the appropriate standards for both legal and factual sufficiency, the record contains ample evidence to sustain at least one, if not all, of the grounds presented to the jury.1 Therefore, I concur in overruling issue three.
Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
As noted in the majority opinion, this court in In the Interest of B.B., 971 S.W.2d 160, 172 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1998, pet. denied), refused to extend the right to effective assistance of counsel to a parent in a termination of parental rights’ proceeding. Likewise, the Fort Worth, Austin, Dallas, Eastland and Tyler Courts of Appeals have also refused. On the other hand, the Houston (1st) and Waco Courts of Appeals have held that parents have a procedural due-process right to effective assistance of counsel. Two other courts, Corpus Christi and Amarillo, have reviewed the actions of counsel without deciding the issue of whether a parent is entitled to receive effective assistance of counsel at a termination hearing. See In re I.V., 61 S.W.3d 789, 799 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); In the Interest of AWT, 61 S.W.3d 87, 89-90 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.).
After reviewing the issue under the Fourteenth Amendment analysis, I am convinced the Waco and Houston (1st) Courts have the better reasoning. Therefore, I would overrule In the Interest of B.B., 971 S.W.2d at 172, and consider the issue. In the alternative, we should follow the “hedge” of the Corpus Christi and Amarillo courts and consider the issue.
Counsel’s Performance
Appellant alleges her counsel was deficient in several instances. Utilizing the appropriate standard of review, and as the majority notes, appellant can not meet the test to show ineffective assistance of coun*545sel. Therefore, I concur in the overruling of issue four and the judgment.

. This being a concurrence, a recitation of the evidence is not necessary.