Seventh Court of Appeals Affirms Termination Where Attorney Knowledge and Record Evidence Defeated Notice Challenge

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Doss, 07-25-00277-CV, February 05, 2026.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Randall County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed a termination order, holding that the appellant failed to preserve her due process challenge regarding a lack of notice and that notice provided to counsel is imputed to the client under Rule 21a. The court further determined that the appellant’s specific litigation instructions to her attorney just days before trial established actual knowledge of the proceeding, defeating her claim of a constitutional violation.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision reinforces the rigorous application of error preservation rules in parental termination proceedings, confirming that even constitutional due process claims are waived if not raised via a motion for new trial or other trial court vehicle. For family law practitioners, it serves as a critical reminder that “imputed knowledge” through counsel is a formidable hurdle; an attorney’s record statement regarding recent client communications can provide the “actual notice” necessary to sustain a judgment, even when the client is absent from the final hearing.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The case arose from the Department of Family and Protective Services’ removal of K.L. due to concerns over the mother’s mental health, drug use in the home, and domestic instability. Following a period of non-compliance with the Family Plan and sporadic visitation, the trial court set the final termination hearing for September 8, 2025. When the case was called, the mother (Appellant) did not appear. Her appointed counsel was present and informed the court that while she expected her client to attend, she had spoken with her the previous week. Crucially, counsel stated that the Appellant had specifically requested the attorney to ask the court to convert the trial into a permanency hearing. The trial court proceeded with the bench trial, found statutory grounds for termination, and determined that termination was in the child’s best interest. The mother appealed, asserting she lacked actual notice of the trial setting.

Issues Decided

The court addressed whether a parent’s due process rights are violated when a termination trial proceeds in their absence without proof of service on the parent personally. Additionally, the court decided whether the Appellant waived her right to challenge the lack of notice by failing to raise the issue in the trial court through a motion for new trial or similar procedural mechanism.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1, which mandates that a complaint be preserved in the trial court to be considered on appeal, a rule that the Texas Supreme Court has explicitly extended to parental termination cases in In re K.A.F. and In re L.M.I. The court also looked to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a, which allows for notice to be served on a party’s attorney, and Texas Family Code § 263.0021(c), which provides that notice of hearings may be given in open court or via a previous temporary order. Finally, the court applied the doctrine of imputed knowledge, whereby an attorney’s knowledge of a trial setting is legally attributed to the client.

Application

The court’s analysis centered on the Appellant’s failure to build a record in the trial court. Because the Appellant did not file a motion for new trial or otherwise object to the lack of notice at the trial level, she failed to preserve the error. Beyond the procedural waiver, the court found that the merits did not support a reversal. Under Rule 21a, notice to the Appellant’s attorney was sufficient. The court highlighted the “most significant” evidence of notice: the attorney’s statement to the trial court. By instructing her attorney just days prior to the trial to seek a “permanency hearing” rather than termination, the Appellant demonstrated actual knowledge of the September 8 setting. The court reasoned that this communication proved the Appellant knew the date and nature of the proceeding and had formulated a specific litigation strategy, thereby satisfying due process.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the Appellant waived her lack-of-notice complaint by failing to timely notify the trial court of the alleged error through a motion for new trial or other appropriate objection. The court reaffirmed that the rules governing error preservation apply with equal force in termination cases involving constitutional challenges.

The court further held that notice provided to a parent’s attorney is imputed to the parent under Rule 21a. Where the record affirmatively shows that the parent provided specific instructions to counsel regarding the hearing in question, actual notice is established, and the trial court does not violate due process by proceeding in the parent’s absence.

Practical Application

For the practitioner, this case emphasizes the danger of making record statements about client contact when a client is a “no-show.” While the attorney was attempting to advocate for a permanency hearing, her statement effectively cured any potential notice defect for the State. Litigators must also ensure that every final trial setting is incorporated into a signed written order during a previous hearing, as this provides a statutory “safe harbor” for notice under Texas Family Code § 263.0021(c).

Checklists

Preservation of Notice Error

• File a verified Motion for New Trial immediately upon learning of a judgment entered in the client’s absence.
• Attach a sworn affidavit from the client explicitly denying receipt of notice from both the court and counsel.
• Request an evidentiary hearing to develop the record regarding the breakdown of communication or failure of service.
• Ensure the notice complaint is specific; a general objection to the judgment is insufficient to preserve a due process notice claim.

Establishing Notice for the Petitioner

• Ensure the final trial date is recited in the “Initial Permanency Hearing Order” or subsequent permanency orders.
• Confirm that all notices served on opposing counsel comply with Rule 21a and maintain the certificates of service.
• If the parent is absent, invite opposing counsel to state on the record when they last had contact with their client to establish actual knowledge.

Citation

In the Interest of K.L., a Child, No. 07-25-00277-CV (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~f2e43649-0c9f-4198-9350-f9b655772331~~