This is same appeal already abated once for mediation, then reinstated - now abated for trial court to have hearing to allow appellants to create a record on the ineffective assistance claim.
here are the abatement order and dissent to the order:
It seems to me that Justices Reyna and Vance are either amending Civ.P. Rule 329b(a), (f) and App.P. Rule 35.1, or just prefer to invest the trial court with jurisdiction to hold further hearings- after its ability to do so would otherwise have expired- because the right to effective assistance cannot otherwise be protected through appellate review. There may be no merit whatsoever to the ineffective assistance claim, but at a minimum a hearing and considerable delay is mandated. Chief Justice Gray seems to advise that a writ of mandamus be sought (presumably based on the duty of his court to determine the appeal under App.P. Rule 40 and presumably from the Supreme Court under art. 5 sec. 3 of the Constitution). I do not know whether his advice is sound or not. Justice Quinn seems to think abatement, while sensible at times, should not be used where rules and timetables expressly structure how the matter is to be handled. Salazar, 2005 WL 820358 *2 If the statutory right to counsel was not afforded, then I guess maybe it is best to let the chips start to fall. Do the parents get to keep custody or some rights during the pendency of the appeal?
Well, in any event, Justices Vance and Reyna are becoming experts in determining whether parents are "good enough". E.g., S.A.P., 169 S.W.3d 685. So, you can be assured the best interests of the child will prevail.
