An Appellate Catch-22
Wikipedia explains that "Catch-22" is common idiomatic usage meaning "a no-win situation" or "a double bind." Although the San Antonio Court of Appeals did not use that term, it recognized the concept in a termination case called In re: R.M.
Termination appeals are tricky. First of all, one must appeal within twenty days rather than the usual thirty days because termination appeals are accelerated appeals. For the same reason, a motion for new trial or the like will not extend the appellate deadline as in the ordinary appeal.
In termination cases brought by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, there's a further requirement. Per Texas Family Code section 263.405(b), an appellant must, within fifteen days after the termination order is signed, file a statement of points on which the party intends to appeal. If no statement is filed, then no issues are preserved for appeal.
One issue that can be raised in a termination case is ineffective assistance of counsel. In In re: R.M., the parent tried to raise that issue on appeal, but because the (ineffective) counsel did not include ineffective assistance of counsel in a statement of points to be raised on appeal, the issue was not preserved for review by the Court.
The Court recognized the result as "harsh" and joined other courts in calling for the legislature to change the statute. Quoting the Dallas Court of Appeals, the Court characterized section 263.405(b) as "a trap for the unwary." But instead of ridding the state of this trap, the legislature added a second one. It amended section 263.405(b) to contract the deadline for filing motions for new trials to fifteen days in TDPRS cases.
In other words, yet another Catch-22.
Termination appeals are tricky. First of all, one must appeal within twenty days rather than the usual thirty days because termination appeals are accelerated appeals. For the same reason, a motion for new trial or the like will not extend the appellate deadline as in the ordinary appeal.
In termination cases brought by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, there's a further requirement. Per Texas Family Code section 263.405(b), an appellant must, within fifteen days after the termination order is signed, file a statement of points on which the party intends to appeal. If no statement is filed, then no issues are preserved for appeal.
One issue that can be raised in a termination case is ineffective assistance of counsel. In In re: R.M., the parent tried to raise that issue on appeal, but because the (ineffective) counsel did not include ineffective assistance of counsel in a statement of points to be raised on appeal, the issue was not preserved for review by the Court.
The Court recognized the result as "harsh" and joined other courts in calling for the legislature to change the statute. Quoting the Dallas Court of Appeals, the Court characterized section 263.405(b) as "a trap for the unwary." But instead of ridding the state of this trap, the legislature added a second one. It amended section 263.405(b) to contract the deadline for filing motions for new trials to fifteen days in TDPRS cases.
In other words, yet another Catch-22.
