Sec. 107.013. MANDATORY APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY AD LITEM FOR PARENT. (a) In a suit filed by a governmental entity under Subtitle E in which termination of the parent-child relationship or the appointment of a conservator for a child is requested, the court shall appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the interests of:
(1) an indigent parent of the child who responds in opposition to the termination or appointment;
(2) a parent served by citation by publication;
(3) an alleged father who failed to register with the registry under Chapter 160 and whose identity or location is unknown; and
(4) an alleged father who registered with the paternity registry under Chapter 160, but the petitioner's attempt to personally serve citation at the address provided to the registry and at any other address for the alleged father known by the petitioner has been unsuccessful.
(a-1) In a suit described by Subsection (a), if a parent is not represented by an attorney at the parent's first appearance in court, the court shall inform the parent of:
(1) the right to be represented by an attorney; and
(2) if the parent is indigent and appears in opposition to the suit, the right to an attorney ad litem appointed by the court.
(b) If both parents of the child are entitled to the appointment of an attorney ad litem under this section and the court finds that the interests of the parents are not in conflict and that there is no history or pattern of past or present family violence by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child of the parties, the court may appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the interests of both parents.
(c) Repealed by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 810, Sec. 11, eff. September 1, 2013.
(d) The court shall require a parent who claims indigence under Subsection (a) to file an affidavit of indigence in accordance with Rule 145(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure before the court may conduct a hearing to determine the parent's indigence under this section. The court may consider additional evidence at that hearing, including evidence relating to the parent's income, source of income, assets, property ownership, benefits paid in accordance with a federal, state, or local public assistance program, outstanding obligations, and necessary expenses and the number and ages of the parent's dependents. If the court determines the parent is indigent, the court shall appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the parent.
(e) 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.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, Sec. 15, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 561, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 2.11, eff. June 14, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 262, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 268 (S.B. 6), Sec. 1.06, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 526 (S.B. 813), Sec. 1, eff. June 16, 2007.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 75 (H.B. 906), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 810 (S.B. 1759), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 810 (S.B. 1759), Sec. 11, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 128 (S.B. 1931), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
527
cases (
141 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case:
In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002).
In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002).
· cites it 3× “denied) (holding that the Sixth Amendment right does not extend to parental termination cases, although the parent contended the right to effective counsel stemmed from Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013); Arteaga v. Tex.”
In the Interest of E.R.W., 528 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “See Tex. Family Code Ann. § 107.013 (a) (West, Westlaw through 2017 R.”
Brice v. Denton, 135 S.W.3d 139 (Tex. App. 2004).
· cites it 10× “Laws 1554, 1554 (repealed 1995) (current version at TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 107.013(a) (Vernon Supp.”
in the Interest of E.A.F., Child, 424 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013(a)(1). Specifically, the Family Code provides that the trial court “shall appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the interests of: (1) an indigent parent of the child who responds in opposition to the termination.”
In the Interest of M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Finally, we hold that the statutory right to counsel under Texas Family Code section 107.013(a)(1) necessarily includes the right to effective assistance of counsel.”
In the Interest of B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013(a)(1). In a termination suit against two parents, both may be entitled to appointed counsel.”
Walker v. Texas Dep't of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Walker's primary point is that he was effectively abandoned and received no defense at all. Presumed Prejudice The Texas Supreme Court has held that the statutory right to counsel in parental-rights termination cases "embodies the right to effective counsel.”
In Re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009).
“The statement may be combined with a motion for new trial.”
In re V.V., 349 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “, this Court had already held that the statutory right to counsel in termination cases meant the right to effective assistance of counsel.”
In re C.L.S., 403 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “” Tex. Family Code Ann. § 107.013 (a)(1). This suit was not filed by a governmental entity and Father was not indigent.”
in the Interest of S.R., S.R. & B.R.S., Child., 452 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. App. 2014).
“Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013(d). Here, the Father signed a written request for appointment of counsel, with information supporting his indigence claim, on December 13, 2012.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(a) — 51 cases
Brice v. Denton, 135 S.W.3d 139 (Tex. App. 2004).
“Laws 1554, 1554 (repealed 1995) (current version at TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 107.013(a) (Vernon Supp.”
In re C.L.S., 403 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. App. 2012).
“” Tex. Family Code Ann. § 107.013 (a)(1). This suit was not filed by a governmental entity and Father was not indigent.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(a)(1) — 186 cases
In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002).
“denied) (holding that the Sixth Amendment right does not extend to parental termination cases, although the parent contended the right to effective counsel stemmed from Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013); Arteaga v. Tex.”
in the Interest of E.A.F., Child, 424 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App. 2014).
“Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013(a)(1). Specifically, the Family Code provides that the trial court “shall appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the interests of: (1) an indigent parent of the child who responds in opposition to the termination.”
In the Interest of M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003).
“Finally, we hold that the statutory right to counsel under Texas Family Code section 107.013(a)(1) necessarily includes the right to effective assistance of counsel.”
Walker v. Texas Dep't of Fam. & Prot. Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App. 2009).
“Walker's primary point is that he was effectively abandoned and received no defense at all. Presumed Prejudice The Texas Supreme Court has held that the statutory right to counsel in parental-rights termination cases "embodies the right to effective counsel.”
In Re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009).
“The statement may be combined with a motion for new trial.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(a)(2) — 3 cases
In Re Er, 335 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. App. 2011).
— Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(a)(3) — 1 case
— Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(a)(l) — 1 case
— Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(b) — 5 cases
In the Interest of B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2003).
“Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013(a)(1). In a termination suit against two parents, both may be entitled to appointed counsel.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(c) — 4 cases
In Re Kk, 180 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App. 2005).
— Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(d) — 21 cases
in the Interest of S.R., S.R. & B.R.S., Child., 452 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. App. 2014).
“Tex. Fam.Code § 107.013(d). Here, the Father signed a written request for appointment of counsel, with information supporting his indigence claim, on December 13, 2012.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 107.013(e) — 62 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.