# In re J.D.H. Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0588 **In re J.D.H., No. 25-0588 (Tex. June 19, 2026). Holding: When a parent's counsel in a parental-termination case renders ineffective assistance by failing to timely perfect an appeal the parent requested, the parent may pursue an out-of-time appeal; the Court remanded for a hearing on whether counsel was in fact ineffective.** Practice areas: family law, civil procedure ## Key issues - A parent whose lawyer's ineffective assistance caused an untimely notice of appeal from a parental-termination judgment may pursue an out-of-time appeal, the Court held in a per curiam opinion. - The court of appeals must abate the appeal and remand for a hearing on whether counsel was ineffective; three Justices dissented, arguing an untimely notice can never confer appellate jurisdiction. ## Factual History On January 31, 2025, the trial court signed a final judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to her child, J.D.H.; Father's rights were also terminated, but he did not appeal (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 2). The Department of Family and Protective Services had removed the child about four years earlier because of concerns about the parents' drug use, criminal history, and domestic violence, according to the dissent (Sullivan, J., dissenting, PDF p. 2). A parental-termination appeal is accelerated, so the notice of appeal was due twenty days after the judgment, on February 20, 2025, and a motion for new trial does not extend that deadline (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 2-3). Mother's counsel filed a motion for new trial on February 28, believing it would extend the appellate deadline, and a notice of appeal was not filed until May 7 (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 2; Petition for Review (Parental Termination) (Petitioner), PDF p. 13). ## Procedural History This is a petition for review of a court of appeals' dismissal. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals' clerk notified the parties the notice of appeal was untimely and the appeal subject to dismissal unless jurisdiction was shown; Mother moved to abate and remand for a determination whether trial counsel was ineffective, the Department took no position, and the court of appeals denied the motion and dismissed on June 5, 2025, holding that under its precedent counsel's ineffective assistance would not excuse an untimely notice or vest it with jurisdiction (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 2-3). Mother petitioned for review, and the Department responded at the Court's request, again taking no position (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 3; Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 8-9, 17). The Court granted the petition without oral argument and decided it per curiam on June 19, 2026, with Justice Sullivan dissenting, joined by Justices Young and Hawkins (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 9). ## Issues Presented Mother presents one issue: whether the constitutional right to effective counsel in parental-termination suits extends to a duty to timely file a notice of appeal, so that an out-of-time appeal can be granted (Petition for Review (Parental Termination) (Petitioner), PDF p. 7). The Court framed it as whether a parent who fails to timely appeal a termination judgment because of ineffective assistance of counsel may pursue an out-of-time appeal (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 1). ## Standard(s) of Review The Court evaluates an ineffective-assistance claim in a termination case under the two-prong standard of *Strickland v. Washington*, as in criminal cases: counsel's performance must be so grossly deficient as to render the proceedings fundamentally unfair, and the deficient performance must have prejudiced the defense (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 4-5). Mother's petition states the same standard (Petition for Review (Parental Termination) (Petitioner), PDF pp. 11-12). ## Legal Arguments **Whether a parent may pursue an out-of-time appeal after counsel's ineffective assistance.** **Petitioner (Mother):** Parental-termination cases receive the same constitutional protection for effective counsel as criminal cases, and when a criminal defense attorney fails to file a timely notice of appeal and is found ineffective, the defendant is entitled to an out-of-time appeal; lower courts consistently refuse the same relief to parents, so the Court should hold that counsel's duty to advise about and perfect an appeal applies (Petition for Review (Parental Termination) (Petitioner), PDF pp. 9, 12-14). Trial counsel apparently believed a motion for new trial would extend the appellate deadline, and the proper remedy is abatement for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance and, if proved, an out-of-time appeal (Petition for Review (Parental Termination) (Petitioner), PDF pp. 13-14). **Respondent (Department):** It takes no position on the issue, which appears to be one of first impression in a termination suit, and offers an overview of authority: the twenty-day accelerated-appeal deadline has no exceptions and post-judgment motions do not extend it, no Texas authority allows an appeal to continue for this reason, the Court of Criminal Appeals grants out-of-time appeals for ineffective counsel, and the child's interest in permanency and the six-month limit of Family Code Section 161.211 would bar any later claim (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 9-11, 13-14). **Justice Sullivan (dissenting):** A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction, and the deadline here is set by statute because Section 263.405(a) incorporates the accelerated-appeal rules; this Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements (Sullivan, J., dissenting, PDF pp. 3-6). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Mother argued that the court of appeals decided an important question of state law that should be, but has not been, resolved by this Court, involving a constitutional issue, and that lower courts are not applying the criminal-case standard to out-of-time appeals in termination cases (Petition for Review (Parental Termination) (Petitioner), PDF pp. 7, 9). ## Practice Area Tags family-law, civil-procedure ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals; granted and decided by per curiam opinion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, without oral argument, on June 19, 2026, with a dissent by Justice Sullivan joined by Justices Young and Hawkins (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 9). ## Amicus Involvement None ## Holding When a parent's counsel in a parental-termination case renders ineffective assistance by failing to timely perfect an appeal the parent requested, the parent may pursue an out-of-time appeal; the Court remanded for a hearing on whether counsel was in fact ineffective (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 6, 9). ## Court's Reasoning **Right to effective counsel.** Parents have a statutory right to counsel in termination cases, which *In re M.S.* held embodies the right to effective counsel and *In re D.T.* extended to parents with retained counsel, because the state is seeking to end a fundamental liberty interest (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 3-4). The Court had previously been asked this question in *K.A.F.* but did not decide it because the parent had not raised it in the court of appeals; here Mother did (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 5). **Criminal-case analogy.** In *Ex parte Axel* and later cases, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted out-of-time appeals when counsel failed to assist a client who wanted to appeal; the Court concluded it must follow a similar course, because it "cannot be the case that a parent may pursue an ineffective-assistance claim on appeal unless the ineffective assistance manifested in the failure to timely perfect that appeal" (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 5-6). **Two caveats.** A failure to file a timely notice does not necessarily equal ineffective assistance, which is why the remedy is abatement for an evidentiary hearing, and the child's interest in permanency remains paramount, so the six-month limit in Family Code Section 161.211 still places a hard deadline on any challenge, subject to constitutional challenges (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF pp. 6-9). **Dissent (Justice Sullivan).** A court of appeals is powerless to review a judgment absent a timely notice of appeal, even when a lawyer is at fault, and here the deadline is statutory because Section 263.405(a) incorporates the accelerated-appeal rules; *Axel* does not help because it involved a successful collateral attack by habeas, which Mother has not sought and this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant (Sullivan, J., dissenting, PDF pp. 1, 3-6). He wrote that his "genuine sympathy for this parent can't confer appellate jurisdiction" (Sullivan, J., dissenting, PDF p. 1). ## Disposition Petition granted, the court of appeals' judgment reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to abate the appeal and remand to the trial court for a hearing on whether Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 9). ## Vote Breakdown Per curiam opinion; Justice Sullivan dissented, joined by Justice Young and Justice Hawkins (Per Curiam Opinion, PDF p. 1). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0588. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.