Opinion
Appellate case number: 01-17-00633-CV
08-24-2017
In the Interest of H.O., a Child
ORDER Trial court case number: 2016-00350J Trial court: 315th District Court of Harris County
On August 9, 2017, appellant, W.H.O., proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the final order. The district clerk's letter of assignment of this appeal to this Court, filed on August 11, 2017, stated there was "NO JUDGMENT SIGNED." However, on August 17, 2017, the district clerk filed a clerk's record in this Court attaching, among other things, a "Decree for Termination," signed on August 17, 2017. This termination decree appears to be an appealable final order.
Because appellant's notice of appeal, filed on August 9, 2017, was prematurely filed without an appealable order at that time, the Court deems it to have been filed on August 17, 2017, the date the appealable order, the termination decree, was signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.1(a). As this appeal involves the termination of the parent-child relationship, this Court is required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed, so far as reasonably possible. See TEX. ST. JUD. ADMIN. R. 6.2(a) (West 2015). Thus, the Clerk of this Court is directed to note in this Court's records that the notice of appeal was deemed filed on August 17, 2017, and that the compliance deadline has been changed from February 5, 2018, to February 13, 2018.
In addition, appellant's pro se notice of appeal states that he is indigent, incarcerated, and he requests appointed counsel. Under the Texas Family Code, the trial court is responsible for appointing counsel to represent an indigent parent, like H.O., in a parental termination suit. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.013(a)(1) (West 2015). Once appointed, the attorney must continue to represent the parent until the suit is dismissed, the appeal is exhausted or waived, or the attorney is relieved of his duties or replaced by the trial court after a finding of good cause. See id. § 107.016(2) (West 2015); In re M.V.G., 285 S.W.3d 573, 575 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, order).
After a review of the clerk's record, the district clerk listed appellant as pro se, but the district court had appointed W. Leslie Shireman as trial counsel for appellant on August 17, 2016. There does not appear to be a subsequent order in the clerk's record by the district court finding appellant not indigent, permitting counsel to withdraw, or appointing new counsel for appellant.
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to deem the appellant indigent and that he is allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs for purposes of the filing fee and the fees for the clerk's and the reporter's records. Also, because no counsel was listed on the letter of assignment or clerk's record by the district clerk, the Clerk of this Court is directed to add W. Leslie Shireman as appellant's counsel in this Court's records.
It is so ORDERED. Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes
[×] Acting individually Date: August 24, 2017