Here's a notion that struck me as astounding:

"[A]ppellant [facing termination of her parental rights] was denied opportunity by her appointed counsel to appear at the hearing. This was so because trial counsel failed to request a bench warrant from the court compelling her appearance at trial. Moreover, there is little doubt counsel knew of her client's interest in attending given that the trial was continued at one point so arrangements could be made to secure appellant's presence."

In re R.C., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2007 WL 1219046 at *2 (Tex.App. - Amarillo April 25, 2007) (Quinn, C.J., concurring).

Isn't an attorney supposed to respect a client's wishes? If the client can't be bothered to show up for trial doesn't that mean the client didn't want to attend.

The defense attorney wasn’t a guardian ad litem for the absent mother. What other things must a defense attorney force her clients to do?

As I read the opinion, I wondered: was she in jail or prison somewhere, and is that why she did not get to trial in the absence of a bench warrant? Can't tell from the opinion; it only says that in the past arrangements had to be made to secure her presence. If she was not incarcerated, the concurring opinion is truly breathtaking. If she was incarcerated and could not come to trial unless a bench warrant was secured getting her there, it makes sense.